Conceptual framework for the participation of children in local area planning decision-making processes through primary geography education

Figures & data

Table 1. Benefits of, and barriers to, children’s participation in planning processes.

Benefit to children’s participation	Literature reference
More effective outcomes and decisions which better meet the needs of local communities	Hanssen (2019), Kranz-Nagl and Zarter (2010)
Stronger community spirit as children engage with the wider community.	Head (2011)
Broader community buy-in and participation in the planning process such as children discussing these issues at home, leading to wider involvement.	Hanssen (2019), Kranz-Nagl and Zarter (2010)
Personal development and educational benefits for children (e.g. developing confidence and empathy in dealing with others, and developing skills and new understandings pertaining to issues and processes).	Derr (2015); Head (2011); Driskell (2002)
A negative ‘adultist’ perception of children’s capabilities which fails to recognise children as citizens and end-users of public spaces	Landsdown (2010); Theis (2010); Frank (2006)
Institutional barriers such as time constraints, lack of professional learning and resources for planners	Hanssen (2019); Ringholm, Nyseth, and Hanssen (2018); Derr (2015); Russell and Moore-Cherry (2013); Freeman, Nairn, and Sligo 2003
The informal ad-hoc nature of children’s contributions which do not align with ‘planner-friendly’ formal procedures and formats	Hanssen (2019); Ringholm, Nyseth, and Hanssen (2018); Frank 2006

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for enabling the participation of children in local area planning decision-making processes through primary geography education in Ireland.

Hanssen, G. S. 2019. “The Social Sustainable City: How to Involve Children in Designing and Planning for Urban Childhoods?” Urban Planning 4 (1): 53–66. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i1.1719.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kränzl-Nagl, R., and U. Zartler. 2010. “Children’s Participation in School and Community: European Perspectives.” In A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation, edited by B. Percy- Smith and N. Thomas, 164–173. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Head, B. W. 2011. “Why not ask Them? Mapping and Promoting Youth Participation.” Children and Youth Services Review 33 (1): 514–547.

 Google Scholar

Derr, V. 2015. “Integrating Community Engagement and Children’s Voice into Design and Planning Education.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 10 (1): 1–15.

 Google Scholar

Driskell, D. 2002. Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth: A Manual for Participation. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Landsdown. 2010. “The Realisation of Children’s Participation.” In A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation. London and New York: Routledge, edited by B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas, 11–32. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Theis, J. 2010. “Children as Active Citizens.” In A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation, edited by B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas, 343–356. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Frank, K. I. 2006. “The Potential of Youth Participation in Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature 20 (4): 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412205286016.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ringholm, T., T. Nyseth, and G. S. Hanssen. 2018. “Participation According to the law?: The Research-Based Knowledge on Citizen Participation in Norwegian Municipal Planning.” European Journal of Spatial Development 67: 1–20.

 Google Scholar

Russell, P., and N. Moore-Cherry. 2013. “Planning for Their Future: Children, Participation and the Planning Process.” AESOP-ACSP Planning for Resilient Cities and Regions 1 (1): 1–14.

 Google Scholar

Freeman, C., K. Nairn, and J. Sligo. 2003. “Professionalising’ Participation: from rhetoric to practice.” Children’s Geographies 1 (1): 53–70.

 Google Scholar