Analysis of the components of improving the quality of urban spaces for children with a right to the city approach (Case study: District 12 of Tehran metropolis)

Document Type : Research Paper


1 PhD student of Urban Planning, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Art and Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Art and Architecture, Science and Research Branch Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Art and Architecture, Science and Research Branch Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran


Extended Abstract
The city is the largest human artificial environment and the result of human encounter as a creature full of belief and value with nature. The body of the city and its current spirit is a perfect representation of the cultural, political and economic relations of the inhabitants of a city.The lack of child discourse and their place in the city, the dominance of adult discourse, the powerlessness of children, the perception of the child as a person without purity and in need of guardianship, are just some of the reasons for not paying attention to children in urban life.In fact, because children make up a significant portion of the urban population, are in an important period of socialization, and will be citizens and future decision makers of the city, they need more attention in urban studies.
A child-friendly city is a developmental concept of the city that emphasizes the rights and perceptions of children within their place, so that they can live, learn, grow and play in their place. The right to the city is an issue of a social, political and legal nature that, based on the concept of citizenship, demands a legal set for all city residents to use the context of urban life in a transparent and fair manner. The concept of the right to the city also seeks to protect all urban residents, especially vulnerable groups. In fact, it seeks to support those groups that are defined in law and regulation as "special threat groups". Examples of these groups are: women, victims of violence, the elderly, people with disabilities, youth, children.
Accordingly, children, like all sections of society, have a right to urban space; Rights that have so far been either ignored or denied.Therefore, NGOs, civil society, professional associations, local authorities and governments should look for ways to democratize urban planning and pay attention to everyone, including children.  The Charter of the Right to the City, meanwhile, is a tool that contributes to the process of recognizing citizens' rights in the international human rights system.The main element of this right is the right to use cities fairly without the right to own, damage or change it. The right to the city on issues such as equality and non-discrimination, special protection of vulnerable individuals and groups, increasing economic solidarity and progressive constructive policies, fair and sustainable urban development, participation, transparency, the right to public information, freedom, justice, assembly, the right to Public security and peaceful coexistence based on peace, solidarity and multiculturalism, access to and provision of public and domestic public services, right to public transportation, right to housing, education, employment, right to culture and leisure, and health, and right to the environment in particular He pays serious attention to children. This concept provides a framework for discussing civil rights and responsibilities and a tool for urban change and the realization of a citizen-centered city.
Accordingly, this study intends to analyze the components related to improving the quality of urban spaces for children in the District 12 of Tehran metropolis ,with the right to the city approach.The present research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of method.The statistical population includes a group of residents of District 12 of Tehran in 1399. In order to estimate the sample size, SPSS Sample Power software was used , According to the objectives and hypotheses of the research as well as the presuppositions related to possible sampling (confidence level, test power, effect size and number of variables involved in the analysis), the statistical sample size of the research for this region was estimated at 120 people.The sampling method was multi-stage cluster. In this way, in the first stage, regions are considered as a general cluster and neighborhoods are considered as sub-clusters and blocks within neighborhoods are considered as sub-clusters of regions. Then according to the number of samples assigned to each region; Several blocks were randomly selected from each area and several households within the blocks were systematically questioned. Based on this, the dimensions and components of the research were extracted. The most important dimensions of improving the quality of urban spaces for children, with the approach  of the right to the city are: physical dimension, cultural dimension, the right to start a good life, protection against danger, education and knowledge and standard of living. T-statistic was used to analyze the data.
Results and discussion
According to the research findings, the average dimensions of life initiation, risk protection, standard of living, physical and cultural in region 12 are lower than the average (3). Therefore, this area is not in a good condition. Meanwhile, only the value of education and knowledge dimension (3.83) is higher than the average and the situation of the region is appropriate in terms of this dimension. According to T-statistics, only the dimensions of education and knowledge (3.01) and physical (4.82) are in good condition. However, the components of a good start in life (-2.10), protection against danger (-2.42), standard of living (2.62) and culture (2.12) are in poor condition.Based on the results of T statistics, the status of the components of the right to leisure and activity (3.65), the right to education (4.04), the right to communication (3.03), facilities and infrastructure (5.22) and green space (4.47) are in good condition.
At the same time, components such as the right to start a healthy life (-3.01), the right to safe water and health (-0.03), the right to emergency preparedness (0.50), the right to safety (-3.43), care Special (2.87), the right to access information (-1.85), the right to social justice (1.27), the right to quality of life (2.48), the right to the environment (1.35) and the right to mobility (2.92) They are not in a good condition.To determine the reliability of the questionnaire, 30 questionnaires were randomly completed in area 12 and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated for the relevant dimensions and indicators. For all dimensions and components, the obtained value was more than 0.70. The total alpha value is calculated to be 0.79. Therefore, there is reliability for the data.


Main Subjects

  1. پرهیز، فریاد. (1396). تبیین تشکیل کانون‌های جرم خیز در کلان‌شهرها (موردمطالعه: منطقه 12 شهر تهران)، پایان‌نامه برای دریافت درجه دکتری در رشته جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، به استاد راهنمایی اصغر ضرابی، دانشکده جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی، دانشگاه اصفهان.
  2. شهری‌زاده، صدف و مویدفر، سعید (1396). برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی شهر دوستدار کودک با تأکید بر خلاقیت کودکان (نمونه موردی: شهر یزد)، فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، (28)، 186-171.
  3. کربلائی حسینی غیاثوند، ابوالفضل و سهیلی، جمال‌الدین (1392). بررسی ویژگی‌های شهر دوست‌داشتنی از نگاه کودکان (مطالعه موردی: منطقه دو شهرداری قزوین)، فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 9، 68-59.
  4. کیانی، اکبر؛ اسماعیل‌زاده کواکی، علی (1392). تحلیل و برنامه‌ریزی شهر دوستدار کودک (CFC) از دیدگاه کودکان (مطالعه موردی: قوچان)، فصلنامه باغ نظر، 20 (9)، 62-51.
  5. Ajit, H. S. Budiyanti, R. B. & Djaja, K. (2016). The development of child-friendly integrated public spaces in settlement areas as an infrastructure of Jakarta, WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, 210, 2016 WIT Press.
  6. Alisdairi, L. K. (2014). A Cry and a Demand: Tactical Urbanism and the Right to the City, A Master Thesis of Urban Planning, Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington. p:5.
  7. Chawla, L. (2002). Insight, Creativity and Thoughts on the Environment: Integrating Children and Youth into Human Settlement Development, Environment & Urbanization, 14(2):11-21
  8. Child Trends. (2013). Neighbourhood Safety. Bethesda, Maryland: Child Trends.
  9. City of Edmonton. (2005). Child Friendly Strategy. Edmonton, Alberta: City of Edmonton.
  10. Cooper, M. & Murphey, D. (2014). Neighborhood Characteristics and Children’s Physical Activity. Bethesda, Maryland: Child Trends.
  11. Dulger, H. N. (2015). Age Friendly Cities Criteria: An Ideal Type, Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University.
  12. Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) Calgary. (2014). Strong Neighbourhoods. Calgary, Alberta: Family and Community Support Services Calgary.
  13. Gilbert, H. (2016). Sustainability starts with children: Child friendly precinct design for active travel and active play, University of South Australia p:13.
  14. Hart, R. (1997). Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development andEnvironmental Care, Earthscan/UNICEF: London.
  15. Howard, A. (2006). What constitutes Child Friendly Communities and How are they built?, Benevolent Society, New South Wales. Australia.
  16. James, P. Driskell, D. Chawla, L. T. Chatterjee, S. (2014). Urban Planning and Children, New delhi: india.
  17. Kaminis­, G. (2010a). Th e Right to The City: 9 priorities for Athens, Athens: [manifesto of campaign trail] [in Greek] Retrieved from: (last accessed 15 June 2013).
  18. Kaminis, G. (2010b). The Right to The City: the list of candidates. [in Greek] Retrieved from: (last accessed 30 June 2013).
  19. Kytta, M. (2003). Children in Outdoor Contexts: Affordances and Independent Mobility in the Assessment of Environmental Child Friendliness, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki p:9.
  20. Loebach, J. E. (2013). Children's Neighbourhood Geographies: Examining Children's Perception and Use of Their Neighbourhood Environments for Healthy Activity, Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. P:2.
  21. Malone, K. (2012). Child Friendly Kazakhstan: National Child Friendly City Assessment and Recognition Model, UNICEF Kazakhstan.
  22. McAllister, C. A. (2011). Where Have All the Children Gone? Community, Nature and the Child Friendly City, A Thesis of P. hd, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2011.
  23. McAllister, C. (2008). Child Friendly Cities and Land Use Planning: Implications for children’s health, Environments Journal, 35(3),1-20.
  24. Memik, N. H. (2004). An Evaluation of the Changing Approaches to Children’s Play Spaces, M.S., Urban Design, Department of City and Regional Planning, The Middle East Technical University.
  25. Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press p:17.
  26. Mitchell, D. Heynen, N. (2009). The Geography of Survival and the Right to the City: Speculations on Surveillance, Legal Innovation, and the Criminalization of Intervention. Journal of Urban Geography, 30(6),611-632.
  27. (2016). Indicators for CHIld friendly Local Development (I - CHILD), Delhi, India.
  28. O’Loghlen, A. (2016). Neoliberalism and the Right to the City: the Challenge for the Urban Slum Dweller. Institute for Social Policy, Housing, Environment and Real Estate (I-SPHERE), School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society.
  29. Peleg, N. (2012). The Child’s Right to Development, A Thesis of P. hd, University College London.
  30. Pieterse, S. (2011). Child Friendly Cities: The case of Wroclaw in Poland, Master of Architecture, Urbanism and Building Sciences, Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
  31. Purcell, M. (2003). Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimagining the Capitalist World Order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3), 564-90.
  32. Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant, GeoJournal, 58(­3):99-108.
  33. Purcell, M. & Tyman, S K. (2015). Cultivating food as a right to the city. Local Environment, International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 20(10), 1132-1147.
  34. Save the Children. (2005). Practice Standards in Children's Participation. London: Save the Children UK.
  35. Shier, H. (2001). Pathways of participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations: A new model for enhancing children's participation in decision-making, in line with Article 12.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children and Society, 15(2): 107–117.
  36. Shier, H. (2010a). Children as public actors: Navigating the tensions. Children and Society, 24(1): 27–34.
  37. Shier, H. (2010b). Pathways to participation' revisited: Learning from Nicaragua's child coffee workers. In B. Percy-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation: Perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 215–230) [Kindle version]. Retrieved from p:16.
  38. UNICEF National Committees and Country Offices (2009). Child Friendly Citie, Fact sheet, September 2009.
  39. Woolcock, G. & Steele, W. (2008). Child-friendly Community Indicators –A Literature Review. Based on a report prepared by Urban Research Program For the NSW Commission for Children & Young People, Griffith University, Queensland p:28.