When do we ask the Children? - A STUDY ON CHILDREN'S PARTICIPATION IN SWEDISH MUNICIPAL PLANNING

(1)

Örebro University

School of Humanities, Education and Social Science Human Geography

When do we ask the

Children?

- A STUDY ON CHILDREN'S PARTICIPATION IN

SWEDISH MUNICIPAL PLANNING

MOA ELFSTRÖM

Master programme in Public Planning for Sustainable Development

Spring semester 2020 Supervisor: Mats Lundmark Examiner: Eva Gustavsson

(2)

Abstract

This thesis discusses how children's perspectives are implemented in the municipality's physical planning in Sweden in relation to the statutory UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The thesis seeks to answer how the planners express their views on the participation, as well as their views on the child and childhood. The study is based on three research questions. The aim is examined in relation to comprehensive planning and use the Norwegian context as a comparison since the country has progressed further in the implementation of the convention. The theoretical framework consists of a research overview regarding social sustainability, and the concepts of child and childhood. An historical review of children’s geography is also conducted. In addition, previous research regarding children’s participation in planning, as well as participation models lays ground for the theoretical framework.

The small-scale case study of three municipalities is carried out by six qualitative interviews with physical and strategical planners, as well as professionals with experience in citizen dialogue. In addition, the empirical analysis includes a small document study of the municipal frameworks for citizen participation.

Key findings are that children's perspectives are lacking in municipal planning processes, especially in relation to the comprehensive planning. In the three cases in this study, the efforts to incorporate children’s perspective into the planning process seems to be largely guided by the planners' own knowledge and interests. The implementation work with the Convention on the Right of the Child varies somewhat between the municipalities, where one of them stood out and had come further than the other two in connection with the physical planning.

The planners view of the child shaped the opportunities for the children to participate in the planning process. The lack of formal guidelines is also described as a reason for the children's lack of participation. An ambivalent picture of children is found among planners and decision makers. These split images create a difficulty in creating a uniform picture of children's participation in the municipalities, as well as finding suitable methods for participation. However, many of the interviewees expressed a strong interest in involving children in planning to a greater extent, and to gain access to more knowledge in the subject.

Keywords: Children’s Geography, Social Sustainability, Children’s Participation, Comprehensive Planning, Convention on the Right of the Child, Planners Role, Norway

(3)

Preface

“When do we ask the Children?” is my international master thesis written during the spring of 2020 at Örebro University in Sweden. The inspiration for this thesis came at the end of my bachelor's degree in connection with the writing of my bachelor's thesis in the subject of children's geography. The choice to focus on participation was made in connection with this year master's focus on sustainability, and in this case, social sustainability.

All the interviews were held in Swedish. This means that all the quotes in this thesis, as well as from Swedish and Norwegian law texts etc., are my own translations. The interview guide and information letter in the appendices are, however, shown in the original language Swedish.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the interviewees from Karlstad, Växjö, and Motala who have made this study possible. I would also like to extend a special thank you to Lina Edwertz for proofreading and encouragement, as well as to Erik for all the moral support during my university years, and not least during the work on this thesis.

Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor Mats Lundmark, professor in Human Geography at Örebro’s University, for guidance, zoom meetings, and answers to all my myriad questions.

Örebro June 2020 Moa Elfström

(4)

1. Introduction

Since the Brundtland Report, the concept of sustainable development has grown from sporadically used words by researchers and politicians, to a commonly used and contested concept. Governments at various levels, organizations and companies around the world have adopted sustainable development and continue to add new aspects and goals to the already obscure definitions (Jacobs, 1999). In the Work for Sustainable Development, most people can agree on the three key elements: ecological, economic, and social sustainability. The former usually receive the greatest attention, although the importance of the economic aspects has generated discussions. But despite the debates, they are generally easy to measure and define. However, the work and debates on the latter, social sustainability, are often seen with different definitions and different interpretations. This makes the social goal fuzzy and difficult to implement, measure and evaluate in planning (Dempsey, Bramley, Power & Brown, 2011). Strategies for working together and on fair terms are often seen in connection with planning for sustainable development. Embedded in the definition of sustainable development and social sustainability is also the principle of social justice. In Agenda 2030, the Brundtland Report and in municipalities comprehensive plans, to mention a few, we can read about the importance of meeting the needs of the present, as well as future generations. The needs of the children of today and tomorrow (United Nation Environment Programme, n.d.; Dempsey et al., 2011). To build this sustainable future democracy and public participation in planning is often identified as two main tools for achieving sustainable development (Innes & Booher, 2004).

Public participation in municipal physical planning in Sweden is today statutory in the sense of consultation with the affected citizens and the right to vote in elections and referendums. These rights to participation, to be heard, and to gain power over the societal development is part of our democratic system, for all voters over the age of 18.

One-fifth of the Swedish population, around 2 million people, are children and youth under the age of 18. This part of the population has no voting rights and seldom access to platforms where they can express their views on community planning and future development (Nordenfors, 2010). One result of the lack of children’s participation in planning issues can be seen in planning without a pervasive children’s perspective, and through the perception of our children as incomplete citizens without their own valuable opinions. Instead, we let adults speak on behalf of the children and make assumptions about how places should be designed and used to benefit them (ibid).

On January 1st, 2020, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was incorporated into Swedish law. The new law will strengthen children's rights and give children the right to express their views on all matters that concern them. In 1991 the Convention was ratified in Sweden's neighbouring country Norway, and 2003 the convention was made into Norwegian law (UNICEF, 2018). The effects of the convention vary from country to country depending on the legal systems. But since there are many similarities between Sweden and Norway in

(8)

both legal, political, demographic, in social terms, and through similar planning and construction laws, Norway can be considered a fair comparison to Sweden on this issue. In this respect, it may be relevant, both for Swedish planners and for the depth of the thesis, to make a small study of Norway's implementation of the convention in relation to physical planning. This study is therefore based on interviews with planners from three Swedish municipalities with regard to examining their views on children and planning. And through a document study the Norwegian context are reviewed as the country can be seen to have relevant experiences.

1.1 Problem Statement

Our built environment is an essential part of creating, but also of preventing a sustainable future. The social and physical environment are strongly linked together. Dempsey et al. (2011) argue that social sustainability, the physical environment, and the scale of our built environment affect and overlap each other. How we live, where the bus stops are, the distance to the supermarket and to nature are just a few parts of the physical planning. Parts, among many, that have a huge impact on our society, on how both adults and children live, and can live, their everyday lives. The physical planning plays a great role for everyone, but are there planning issues that are particularly important for children? And are there cases where children's exclusion is justified?

Comprehensive and strategic planning can easily be explained as abstract and difficult to understand, even for adults. The planning of our land and water use is broad, and instead, planners prefer to focus on children when it comes to actual "child" issues (Cele & Van der Burgt, 2015). However, since the comprehensive and strategic planning forms the basis for more detailed plans and cases, children's involvement in the overall planning can help to make the children’s perspective permeate the physical planning. Places where children spend a lot of time, for example, school, home neighbourhood, leisure time activities, are important for them. But we still need to ask ourselves; What is a “child question”? Where public transport lines are located, where roads are drawn, and how much natural land is to be preserved and where, are issues that affect children to a great extent, now and in the future. So, the question may not be “if”, but rather “how” to include children broader in questions about physical planning? In recent years, the interest in implementing children's opinions in planning has increased, and participation is also part of the CRC. This means that local authorities are obliged to ensure the right to every child's participation and influence in all matters concerning the child (UNICEF, n.d.). The Swedish youth policy also states that all young people should have influence over the development of society, good living conditions and the power to shape their own lives (Regeringskansliet, 2019 a). In order to create a society that is safe, healthy, pleasant, and equal for both us and our children, it is important to listen to all citizens, also those without the right to vote. To protect and strengthen children's voices in debates and decisions, social planning must create space for our younger citizens and learn how to integrate their views into practice.

(9)

And to achieve sustainable development, we must focus on the social part in combination with the built environment in which we live.

Participation in the planning of our communities must be accessible to both adults and children, and children's participation has long been neglected (Knowles-Yanez, 2005). Today we need more knowledge about how to involve, especially children, into the planning process (Regeringskansliet, 2019 b). Local governments are increasingly trying to develop strategies for children’s participation in local planning and decision-making, as well as how the child’s voice can be interpreted and used in planning (Freeman, Nairn & Sligo, 2003). Reports and voices from Swedish municipalities testify to the difficulties in applying the convention and the lack of appropriate strategies and knowledge among planners (Karlsson, 2019; Lång & Jakobsson, 2019).

To allow for the influence of children and to incorporate their rights in line with the CRC, the children must be included in planning theory. For children to become involved there is a need for studies of the dominant norms and values that our society has, as well as the role of planners. It requires that we review and reflect our utopian visions and plans for the sake of the children. Also, it requires that we investigate how children can get involved in shaping our communities. This without judging them against the "adult" norms, to be able to fully respect their views (Gillespie, 2012). A more developed understanding of children's role in physical planning as well as new strategies are needed to meaningfully implement the children's best interests. More research needs to be done to understand how children's interests and rights can be integrated into actual planning practice and why it is so common to overlook it argue Crane and Dee ( 2001) and Knowles-Yanez (2005).

1.1.2 Aim of the Study

The aim of the study is to investigate how children’s perspectives are implemented in the municipality's physical planning, and how the planners' views on children's participation in the planning process are expressed. It is also of interest for the purpose of the thesis to investigate the extent to which the Children have the opportunity to participate in different planning processes.

The aim will be examined in relation to the development of new comprehensive plans and the guidelines that are available for children's participation in municipal planning. The Norwegian context will also be used in comparison with Sweden as countries have already implemented the convention. The study is based on the following questions.

1. In what way can children’s participation be changed in the planning process as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child became Swedish law on 1 January 2020?

2. What view of the child and childhood shapes the planners' view of the work with children's participation in the planning?

3. How is children's participation in the planning process perceived by the planners and how is it expressed in the planning guidelines?

(10)

1.2 The Study's Boundaries and Central Concepts

This master's thesis comprises 15 higher education credits and was carried out during the spring term in 2020, as part of the one-year master program Public Planning for Sustainable Development at Örebro University 2019-2020. The thesis is written in the field of human geography. The focus of the study is citizen participation, with a boundary to investigate children's participation in physical planning. Children in this regard are all Swedish residents aged 0-18.

The study has been limited by both time, resources, and external circumstances. The time required for the thesis is determined based on the thesis level of 15 credits, which corresponds to ten weeks. The short time has also largely influenced the choice of methods and sampling, and thereby limited the scope of the study.

In the spring of 2020, the world was hit by the corona pandemic. As a result, Swedish society, to a certain extent, was shut down and many became ill and died. The Public Health Authority's directive on social distance and work from home, as well as a high spread of infection, resulted in a high absence in schools and at workplaces. There was also a risk of further measures, such as closed schools and workplaces. This has obviously affected this study in many respects. The empirical part of the thesis is therefore based solely on contacts with adults and document studies, methods that could be carried out without personal meetings. The corona pandemic has also affected the studies when seminars on essay writing were cancelled, supervisor meetings were held via video link, and all the work was done from home without study groups nor discussions with classmates.

The thesis also has a geographical boundary as it only examines children's participation in the municipalities of Karlstad, Växjö and Motala. Karlstad was chosen as the main study case, and then laid the foundation for the choice of the other municipalities. That Karlstad was elected in the first place was partly due to personal connections to the municipality and their work with a new comprehensive plan. The planners at the municipality also showed an interest in the purpose of the dissertation when they was contacted.

1.2.2 The Concepts of Child and Childhood

The concepts of ‘child’ and ‘childhood’ are not precise and vary widely between cultures, reports, and researchers. The concepts will thus have to be defined and positioned. In the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), anyone under the age of 18 is defined as a child because of the legal rights or obligations obtained after the age of 18 (UNICEF, n.d.). This is, however, a definition that can be problematic for two main reasons. First, there is a large variation in physical, social, and psychological development in children in such a wide age span. Second, it becomes very difficult to know who it is referring to when only the terms “child” or “children” are used (Cele, 2006).

(11)

Due to this problem, more divisions within the ‘category of children’ are needed. Hart (1992) refers to the pre-teenage years with the term of ‘child’ and describes the ages 13 to 18 as ‘youth’ or ‘teenagers’.

To simplify and not confuse the reader, “child” in this thesis refers to all persons between newborn and 18, although the focus will largely be on children of school-age (5-18). Sometimes the term “youth” are used, referring to children in their teens (13-18), when differences need to be highlighted. “Young children” is also a term used when children below school-age, about five years old, are to be detected.

1.2.3 Different Child Perspectives

The Child perspective is the perspective we get when we consider the consequences our (adult) decisions can have on children. It is about interpreting the child's voice to give them their rightful place in society, to work for the best interests of the children and to take care of and defend their rights. The children's perspective is thus more than just speaking on behalf of the children in different situations.

The Child right perspective is the perspective we get, or take, when we secure the rights of the child through measures or decisions, such as the rights formulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Children's perspective is the perspective we get when we ask the children what they think and want. The children's perspective is about taking part in and being open to the child's experiences and knowledge, about capturing the culture that belongs to the child and the feelings the child has.

Children's perspectives and participation are interdependent, one requires the other. Children's participation requires the ability of adults to capture children's perspectives and to do so fully, children must have the opportunity to participate and be listened to (Nordenfors, 2010).

1.4 Disposition

This thesis is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter began with an account of the aim, research questions, and definitions. Chapter two is a background chapter in which a review of prevailing laws and guidelines regarding children's participation in planning, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Chapter three is a theoretical chapter in which the theoretical framework of the study and previous research concerning, children's participation, the view of the child and the child's geography are presented. Chapter four is the methodological chapter of the study and contains a review of the methods that have been applied, method discussion and ethical guidelines. Chapter five contains a presentation of the empirical material from the interviews and the document study of the planning in Norway. Chapter six and seven are the final chapters of the thesis. Here an analysis of the study's results

(12)

together with previous research is first made, and then a final discussion based on the study's aims and collected material are presented in chapter seven.

(13)

2.Background

2.1 Overall Physical and Strategic Planning

Physical planning is about land and water use. How our cities, communities and rural areas should be developed or protected. It is about the exploitation of land, the construction of houses, workplaces, schools, roads, and public transportation. And about design, parks, nature reserves, and digital infrastructure. Physical planning includes pipes, water and drains, and sustainable development, the list goes on (Forsberg, 2001). When we plan, we choose a particular future, and we reject other possible ones. How we plan our society, and how we choose not to, affect us all one way or another. In a broad sense, all the listed areas do affect children as much as adults, today and in the future. However, some areas can be seen as more relevant for children or affect them more than others. The common thing is to connect children to planning of schools, bike lanes and playgrounds. Areas used by many children, and areas which are also considered suitable for them to stay at by adults (Barnombudsmannen [BO], n.d. a).

2.1.1 The Swedish Planning and Building Act (PBL)

The Swedish municipalities have planning monopoly. This means that only the municipality has the right to plan land and water use within its borders. Regulations regarding planning of land and water, as well as buildings, are regulated by the Swedish Planning and Building Act (PBL). The purpose of PBL is to promote development within the municipalities with good and equal social living conditions for the people today, as well as for future generations. The requirements of the PBL are to consider both the general and individual interests that exist, as set out in Chapter 1, § 5 (Plan- och Bygglagen [PBL], SFS 2010: 900). PBL does not say anything about the social sustainability of the comprehensive planning except in the section where the municipality intends to be responsible for meeting the long-term housing need (Chapter 3 5§). However, the planning process is legislated, which means that the municipality is responsible for organizing consultations, exhibitions, and audits, in order to invite citizens to participate in planning processes.

2.1.2 Comprehensive Planning

All municipalities in Sweden must have a municipality-wide and valid comprehensive plan. The plan often reaches over 20-30 years and should indicate the direction for the long-term development, preservation and usage of the physical environment and guide decisions regarding land and water use. A current comprehensive plan is a basis for a municipal planning monopoly and the municipalities' right to interpret the general interests themselves. The decision is governed by PBL. The comprehensive plan shall act as a tool in the dialogue between the municipality and stakeholders regarding the municipality's development. The plan is only advisory, and the adoption does not involve decisions on actual measures or changes (PBL, SFS 2010:900; Boverket, 2020 c). For a municipality to develop a new comprehensive

(14)

plan takes years and includes many steps. The plan proposal shall be consulted with interested parties and authorities (Boverket, 2020 a).

2.2 Children in Physical Planning

The Parliament writes in a government bill in 2010 that; Responsible actors with good knowledge of both the business, the applicable children's law, and appropriate methods are required to make the best use of child rights. Methods used must also be clearly accounted for and be adapted to the child's conditions (Prop. 2009/10:232). Integration of children's perspectives and opinions in physical planning is usually done through planners who are the ones designing the process. However, some stages in the process are relatively precisely determined in PBL.

In PBL there is no special part where the children's participation is specified in connection with the planning process. However, the Environmental Code's (Miljöbalk [MB], SFS 1998:808) regulation state that stakeholders must be involved in the comprehensive planning process as early as possible. And if the child is identified as a particularly affected citizen, it should also be classified as a stakeholder. This means that situations, where children can be assumed to be included in the planning process, are many. It is important to note, however, that everything that is regulated in PBL applies to all citizens, and so also to children. So, when citizens are asked to participate in planning processes, this also applies to children.

2.2.1 The Swedish Youth Policy

The Swedish Youth Policy is cross-sectoral and includes all state decisions and measures that affect young people between the ages of 13 and 25.

“All young people must have good living conditions, the power to shape their lives and influence the development of society”

(Regeringskansliet, 2019 a)

2.2.2 Public Health Objectives

In the Swedish public health goal, with the aim of creating a long-term and preventative structure for more equal health in the entire population, children are particularly specified in target area one, which deals with the child's right to good conditions for growing up. Children is also generally mentioned in target area seven, which deals with control, influence, and participation. Measures for more equal participation in democratic processes and in civil society shall be taken in accordance with Public Health Objective number seven (Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2020).

(15)

2.2.3 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

The Convention consists of a total of 54 articles, of which four of them, articles 2,3,6 and 12, form the basis of the Convention (Åkerlund, 2019). In terms of its scope and adoption of rights-based agendas since World War II, many believe that the CRC is one of the most successful. But despite its adoption over 30 years ago, children's and young people's rights are discussed and denied both globally and locally. It shows how the establishment and implementation of the CRC policies are difficult (Aitken, 2018).

How the CRC is translated into different national jurisdictions, and for different children, differs between countries in the world. In Sweden, CRC was adopted in 1990, and have since been legally binding but not a law. This has meant that the Convention alone could not be relied on in Swedish courts, and many felt the CRC was too weak to protect children's rights. The first of January 2020, the Convention was made into law in Sweden, which gave it the same status as other Swedish laws. The aim of the decision is to strengthen children’s rights in practice, and the CRC will now intend to be the ultimate safety-net if, and when, other laws are insufficient. Another main difference is that it places a greater responsibility on the authorities, the judiciary, and other decision-makers to apply the rights in the CRC, than before (Ödquist Drackner, 2018). It is now required by the municipalities to ensure that every child gets the possibility to be heard in decisions that affect them. This does not only concern traditional places for children, such as school and childcare, but also decisions regarding traffic, environment, and urban planning, to mention a few examples (BO, n.d. b).

“States that have adopted the convention shall assure the child who is able to form his own views the right to freely express them in all matters concerning the child. The child's opinions

should be given significance in relation to the child's age and maturity.”

(UNICEF, n.d., Article 12)

2.2.4 Interpretation and Guidance when Implementing the CRC

The United Nation has a committee in Genève for the right of the child that supervise how the countries around the world work in accordance with the CRC. The Swedish Ombudsman for Children is responsible for following the international development according to the interpretations and applications of the CRC (BO, n.d. b).

The Children's Rights Committee has identified four so-called basic principles in the convention, thereby article 12, and expresses their views on the interpretation and meaning of the article. However, the Committee stresses that the CRC must be regarded as a moving instrument whose interpretations evolve over time. They also point out that the convention should be seen as an integrated whole, and not solely by article. In 2019, the Government Office and, more specifically, the Ministry of Labour, issued a report to provide guidance and support on how governments can interpret and apply the CRC (Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet, 2019). In this study, the focus will be on the articles that can be directly linked to physical planning.

(16)

Article 3.1 of the CRC provides that the best interests of the child, individually and collectively, shall be considered in all matters relating to an individual child or groups of children. In assessments, when interests are weighed against each other, the best interests of the child are to weigh heavily but not to decide the outcome alone. In individual cases, other societal interests may weigh more heavily. According to the Committee, Articles 3 and 12 complement each other, as the child's own opinions are an important part of the assessment of the child's best interests (ibid).

Article 12.1 states the right for children to express their views freely, and that this right belongs to children who can form those opinions. However, according to the Children's Rights Committee, this should not be interpreted as a restriction on the child, but rather as an obligation for the state to try to assess the child's ability to form his or her own opinion. It should not be the responsibility of the child to prove this ability, or that the ability to form opinions shall be judged solely on the child's age. The Committee writes that even very young children can form their own opinions, but that these are often expressed in ways other than we are used to, for example, verbally. The state is therefore obliged to ensure that children, who may have difficulty expressing their opinions due to various reasons, are given good conditions to do so. The ability of the child to freely express opinions in decisions also requires the child to be informed about decision-making processes and the situations in which children's opinions matter (ibid).

Article 31 in the CRC deals with the child's right to play, rest and leisure, as well as cultural participation (ibid). This affects the physical planning in the sense that the child needs space to play, safe places for recovery, and opportunities for leisure activities.

In November 2019, an investigation was expected to present a report on how Swedish legislation and practice are in accordance with the CRC. But doe to a request from the investigators the report has been extended one year by the government (Sveriges kommuner och regioner [SKR], 2020).

2.2.5 Agenda 21

In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development was organized. One result of the conference was Agenda 21, an action plan for sustainable development that also highlights the role of children and their importance for sustainable development in chapter 25 (United Nations [UN], n.d.). In Agenda 21, chapter 25 you can read that active participation of children in decision-making processes at all governmental levels regarding environment and development is critical to the success of Agenda 21. Objectives and activities to promote children's involvement in municipalities, regions and at a national level are also defined (ibid).

Children's participation should be an issue when it comes to planning for sustainable development not least because environmental changes affect their lives here and now and will have major consequences for their future. The children's intellectual contribution, unique

(17)

perspectives, and abilities to mobilize support should also be taken into account in the debate and decisions regarding Agenda 21 (ibid).

2.3 Indicative Bodies

2.3.1 The Swedish Ombudsman for Children (BO)

In 1993 the parliament voted for the establishment of an ombudsman for children in Sweden. According to the new law, the mission of the Ombudsman and the newly established department was to work for children's right and needs on a general level. Since 2002 the mission also includes driving the implementation of the CRC in authorities, regions, and municipalities. The Ombudsman also got the right to request and collect information from authorities, regions, and municipalities on how they work to incorporate the CRC (BO, n.d. c).

2.3.2 Guidance from the National Board of Housing, Building and

Planning (Boverket)

Boverket, the National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning, work on national issues relating to housing, building, and planning. Their main mission is to investigate issues within their area and to prepare regulations and guidance for authorities, as well as private actors (Boverket, 2019). Boverket is the authority that has been commissioned to investigate and analyse the implementation of the CRC into the physical planning at different governmental levels.

In January 2020, Boverket published a guide on public dialogue in the physical planning where a focus on children's participation was found. Examples, methods and advice for children's participation were formulated and the authority stated that many methods for children's participation also suited adults, but rarely the other way around. The authority also writes that school is an important arena and that planning can be included in several different subjects (Boverket, 2020 b).

2.3.3 The Swedish Municipalities and Regions (SKR)

The Swedish Municipalities and Regions (SKR) is a member and employer organization in which all Sweden's municipalities and regions are members. Their mission is to support the development in regional and municipal activities. They give consultations, work for the exchange of knowledge and for coordination between the Swedish regions and municipalities (SKR, n.d.).

Following a demand for tools from municipalities and regions, SKR has developed guidelines for how to apply CRC in the various areas of responsibility of the authorities. The SKR writes that these tools do not give a full picture of the issue, however, it can serve as a basis for further development. In the planning and building area, the SKR suggest that mainly article 12, but also article 4 of the CRC shall be implemented. SKR also states that the routines and guidelines

(18)

concerning the convention should be known by all co-workers, including consultants and entrepreneurs involved in planning processes (SKR, 2019).

2.3.4 Child Impact Assessment

Involving children and considering the child's views in community planning is not something entirely new that has only become of interest as the CRC became law (2020). Assessments of social effects are something that many municipalities and authorities have worked with for a long time to investigate how social rights and aspects may be affected by planning and exploitation (Göteborgs Stad, n.d.). However, the social tools have not been particularly focused on children's needs, and therefore the tool Child Impact Assessment was developed in 2001 by the Ombudsman for Children (BO, 2015).

The goal with the Child Impact Assessment is to form the basis for all decision-making on issues concerning children (Karphammar, 2020). The Child Impact Assessments are also a tool for giving the CRC an actual influence over the physical planning process. The assessment can be performed in small as well as big projects, from one playground to a whole city area, and are often found in the form of a simple checklist that is filled out by planners when new projects start.

The city of Gothenburg was early in developing their own Child Impact Assessment to strengthen and develop the children's roles in physical planning. Methods for child participation are also suggested and examples of conducted projects are given (Göteborgs Stad, 2017). However, there is a lack of self-reflection and analysis of possible improvements. The children's own voices are also not prominent.

According to Nordström (2013), a well-executed assessment should contribute to a better living environment for children. It should also lead to innovative thinking and more vibrant cities, as well as strengthen cooperation between different sectors within the municipalities. But it is important to remember, Nordström (2013) writes, when and why Child Impact Assessments are established. For a poorly planned child impact assessment, or one performed at a late stage in a process, can become meaningless, without any direct effect for the best interests of the child. How we interpret children's contributions and integrate the assessment into the planning process are also two important questions, Nordström (2013) states.

A third aspect to consider regarding the assessment is the result. Only a performed Child Impact Assessment is no security for children's best interest in physical planning. Also,the assessment shall be based on prevailing conditions and should not be seen as one universal scheme that can be performed only once and then be used as guidance over time (ibid).

(19)

3. Theory and Previous Studies

The ontological position that shapes this thesis is the belief that space is socially constructed and filled with meaning by people interacting with each other, rather than being empty delimited containers (Aitken & Valentine, 2006). When it comes to research on experiences and children's participation, this position is appropriate in such a way that it applies to the creation of space. For what is a place created for children, or for all citizens, if no child feel that the area is for them? Is it still a place for children space?

The division between place and space can be called into question. According to Lefebvre (1991), the social space is created when it is filled with someone's experiences. In order to still be able to differentiate the concepts, place is described as a geographical point on a map, a bounded area given by coordinates. Space is instead the content, the perceived and the meaning a place is filled with. With this position, the importance of children's participation can be emphasized. In this way, belief in the socially constructed space shapes the thesis and highlights the importance of people's participation, not least the children, in the creation of our society and in the construction of space. Within the understanding of socially constructed space, space is seen as in a process of constant transformation. Since people's relationships with places are always changing and can be temporary, so is space. A place or space in that sense can thereby never be complete but is always in a state of creation (Bartos, 2013).

The view is also shaped by the belief in multiple truths that can exist simultaneously, rather than the existence of one universal truth (Aitken & Valentine, 2006). This view of truth affects all parts of the study. The pursuit of a single truth could instead have led the essay into a positivist light where empirical observations prove general theories (Kitchin, 2006). But how could one or two observed phenomena speak for all children when the child's context changes to infinity?

The socially constructed space also formed the theoretical part of the study. Like a lens, the position worked as a sorting tool, but also to widen the picture of children and childhood, because nobody, alone, can give a picture of the whole or answer to the aim of the thesis. This study is based on perceptions and emotions, on individuals and groups' views of childhood and the child, which is argued to be changeable in time and space. The view of children and childhood is that it is constructed by humans and created and formed by our actions and cultural behaviour. The child and childhood “come into being” through us and our historical and social context.

This lens can also be seen as a narrowing of a researcher’s worldview when it served as a selective tool. However, some limitations must be made in all studies, and so in this. We must consider laws and regulations, directives that are set up and regulated widely, regardless of local context or circumstances. But these are also the parts of the context that create our society and us as individuals and therefore set the standards by which we and then our places are constructed by.

(20)

3.1 Social Sustainability Planning

Sustainable development is a concept, a phrase, a term, that we have heard, read, and seen countless attempts to implement in projects. Jacobs (1999), by many, describes sustainable development as a contested concept with a lack of, and fear of, a single exact definition. The fear lies in the fact that sustainable development, without clarity, permits greenwashing, and without an exact definition and checklist is difficult to implement when it comes to politics or planning. But Jacobs (1999) rejects the fear and the search for a unitary and precise meaning of sustainable development. He argues that, despite many and vague definitions, it makes a contested concept neither meaningless nor worthless.

But Jacobs (1999) expresses concern about the social part of sustainable development. He argues that, especially in the global north, social sustainability is the least noticed by the core ideas. Dempsey et al. (2011) share Jacobs (1999) concern about the social dimension. They find that surprisingly little attention has been paid to the definition of social sustainability in built environment disciplines. This can be contrasted with how sustainable development in recent years has had a huge impact on policies, planning and housing.

The public health authority in Sweden describes a socially sustainable society as a place of equality and justice (Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2018). In the profession of a public spatial planner, the main task is to create a social whole in the plans. To build a society where everyone is given the opportunity for a secure and good life within the formally existing laws. In order to achieve the whole and to incorporate the basic values of social sustainability, our societies need to be planned for all residents and be places that enable meetings, this to create inclusion and context (Johansson & Lalander, 2013).

Physical planning is largely governed by laws such as the Planning and Building Act (PBL) and The Swedish environmental code (MB), but Tonell (2005) argues that much in planning is still about interpretations. Decisions without clear laws to be based on are instead a result of our own value theory. The laws that currently govern the land and water use within the municipalities provide a great deal of room for interpretation. This is something that can primarily damage the social sustainability that is, to a large extent, based on actors' performance (ibid).

Tonell (2005) argues that all people, more or less consciously, try to maximize utility. An argument that highlights the importance of including more realities in planning projects according to Johansson (2009). Johansson (2009) means that a desired sustainable result is achieved through the involvement of several realities, an involvement of different thoughts and experiences that should start early in a project. Dempsey et al. (2011) also promote participation as one of the decisive factors for building a socially sustainable environment.

(21)

3.2 Children’s Geography

There have long been human geographers who have noticed how the experiences, problems and geographies of children and adolescents are forgotten or ignored in the research and debate within the field (Horton, Kraftl & Tucker, 2008; Aitken, 2001; 2018). This view, together with research on children in other fields, has inspired and grounded the foundation of the sub-discipline with an interdisciplinary effort, Children's geography. But important to note, the disciplinary, symbolic, and material structures that create the adult space are the same structures that children live their lives in and must operate within. The geography of the children is thus dependent on the adults’ geographies (Cele, 2006).

Within children’s geography, there are three more or less clear divisions or phases (Holloway, 2014; Aitken, 2018). The roots can be traced to other branches and disciplines, especially to feminist studies and studies of children's play which began to develop as early as the 1960s, but without much impact on research in general. It was not until the early 1970s that the children's geography began to make an impression, strongly influenced by the popular developmental and environmental psychological work of the time (Aitken, 2018).

In the early 1980s, interest in feminist studies and perspectives in geography increased. This Aitken (2018) describes as a major political change which considerably affected the adoption of children's geographies as a concept of discipline. The feminist approach raised the notion of socially constructed spaces and space-constructed social areas that also paved the way for the idea of children and their "own" geographies (ibid). In 1989, an important event was organized, the signing of the CRC, which came to affect children and the view of childhood throughout the world. Children's geography was on the world’s agenda, and the interest in "new sociology of childhood" increased (ibid).

The second phase had a social attitude towards childhood and had an impact on the view of children, adolescents, and families (Holloway, 2014). Previous studies in children's geography had focused mainly on children's pure connection to nature, their ability to perceive space, and their state of becoming adults, rather than as complete beings here and now (Aitken, 2001). Instead, the interest in studying children's social experiences and status in the social field and in the political debates became in the beginning of the 1990 great. The children also began to be regarded both as individuals and as part of the collective (Holloway, 2014).

In the last few decades, the third phase of children's geography has evolved from questions of political identity. Questions that challenge what we think we have known about young people and their geographies to this day. Today, children’s geography is mostly about how children move, create and redo space, themselves, and their lives in urban environments. Much focus is also on and how adults enable or limit children in these processes (Aitken, 2001; 2018). However, studies that focus on children outside our urban clusters appear to be a scarcity. Both Aitken (2018) and Holloway (2014) describe how these three phases are developments of the previous phases and that many concepts and methods remain. Today, children's geographies are heterogeneous and include a variety of ways to understand children and their

(22)

places in the world. Aitken (2018) says that there are always other ways of thinking about young people's spaces and that we must try to consider the context in which we research or plan. This means that when childhood is looked upon as socially constructed, the spatial surroundings are also constructed (Aitken, 2018; Jans, 2004). In other words, at some places such as at home or in the park, children are considered to be in the right context because these are designed for children. In other places, such as the parking lot or train station, children are considered misplaced if they move around without adult companionship (ibid).

3.2.1 Socially Constructed Childhood

Until the 18th-century childhood was not an established term. Children from six to seven years old were considered to be small adults, with the same commitment to employment but with weaker civil rights. For children in higher society, a difference in treatment began to be noticed. An idea that they needed protection, education and care began to spread by philanthropists like Rousseau and Locke. However, for working-class children, it took longer to get their right to their own social environment. At the beginning of the 20th century, children and adults’ environments were increasingly separated. This happened in connection with the generalization of compulsory education (Jans, 2004). The school was designed to teach and nurture children with the goal of shaping them to be completed, full citizens. For the time being, citizenship was the exclusive territory for adults, and childhood was the transportation towards it (Holloway, 2014). Children became more and more protected and treated like “unfinished” human beings. At the same time movements for children’s rights grew and the individualized society took form.

In the sociology of childhood, children are considered as social actors. They are interactive agents with the will to create a place for themselves in their social worlds but are often hindered by the social structures (Horelli, 1997). Today we see an ambivalence towards childhood in society. On the one hand, both parents and society are prone to nurture and protect the child. On the other hand, it is increasingly shaped to present itself as an autonomous individual (Jans, 2004). History shows us how childhood has grown and is created socially. Childhood cannot be regarded as something fixed and universal but as something socially constructed and changeable.

Holloway (2014) points to the importance of studying children both as creatures whose life-worlds are interesting and as a structural category, to demonstrate injustice and lack of equality in the current organization of society. This view also applies to the position in the CRC, which describes children as a political group of subjects with rights rather than objects of rights (Aitken, 2018). Nor does Jans (2004) see any major problems in this ambiguous picture of children. The challenges lie in dealing with the ambivalence rather than to try to get rid of it.

3.2.2 Being and Becoming

To create dialogue and debate, new thought patterns, justice, and social sustainability in planning and plans we need creativity and constructiveness. Many researchers argue for

(23)

difference and heterogeneity in the planning process, as well as in the theory, to make this come true (Sandercook, 2004; Innes & Booher, 2003). Although planning has become a more democratic process with legislated consultations etc., Gillespie (2012) see a lack of children being in planning theory. She means that the child is seen as human “becoming’s” until they become adults, instead of “beings”, acknowledged for their own skills. Gillespie (2012) criticizes that the adult-centred bias in social and political theory is taken for granted. The children have been viewed as a problem and a burden since the concept of childhood had its impact on society and parenting.

To highlight “new” ways of being, doing, and thinking about children's integration and participation in urban spaces, Gillespie (2012) conducts a historical review. She believes that we can learn from history and see that our view of childhood and children's vulnerability is culturally constructed norms that have served to shape urban planning. Children have not always been viewed from the outside world but have in many ways been part of it. To be able to see the capacity of children, and give them power for change, history can teach us and help us to reshape planning theory and planning practise.

Children are both permanent in being adults, but also in being here and now. They possess both the skills and experiences of the reality they have and are living in. But Gillespie (2012) also writes that history is not without problems. Children's rights to play and for having a childhood have been, and still is, a struggle in many places. However, this right should not be an obstacle to children's participation and independence. Instead, play and childhood should be seen as a strength when children are integrated into planning (Gillespie, 2012).

3.3 The child’s Right to Create Space

To be able to understand children’s agency, researchers and decision-makers need to listen and use the child's own experiences (Cele & Van der Burgt, 2015; Cele, 2015). Research and reports show how children often feel excluded from public places, lack platforms to express themselves, feel overlooked, and all too often being represented by adults in important planning situations (Ataol, Krishnamurthy & Van Wesemael, 2019; Cele, 2015; Crane & Dee, 2001). However, Horton et al. (2008) also shed light on how children's geography in recent decades has developed a new set of conceptual approaches that have in turn spread the work and influenced developments in broader disciplines.

To achieve a society in which social sustainability prevails, democracy and participation in public planning are required. For public participation, Percy-Smith (2010) thinks that we must examine how spaces in everyday contexts are constructed in order to truly understand participation in an everyday social context. He argues that the nature of space, directly and indirectly, affects whether people can and are willing to participate. This, in turn, affects people's opportunity to influence the use of a place, and thereby also the space for participation. The built environment influences how we feel, move, and express ourselves. Geographical studies conducted in countries within the global north have shown a growing exclusion of

(24)

children's access to public places (Holloway, 2014; Cele, 2015). Ataol et al. (2019) together with Holloway (2014) see this development as a way for adults to protect children from the risks of society, but also to gain control over tranquillity and public places. Along with the debates about the optimal place for children, this affects their exploration of environments and thus their perception of space (Ataol et al., 2019).

In Van der Burgt and Cele (2014) study of children’s rights and access to the public urban place, the researchers show how age is an organizing factor. Age controls society's image of competence to manage and evaluate risks, space, and movement. This age organization restricts children from public places, according to Van der Burgt and Cele (2014), and prevents them from taking a physical place in society. This exclusion also makes the changes in the built environment less likely to adapt to children or encourage their participation when they are not part of it. But Holloway (2014) warns, saying that if we choose to listen to children, we are also forced to respect that they can value other forms of places than we adults intended. This can in itself become a value management problem when conflicting interests will meet, and experiences being discussed.

3.3.1 The Child’s Sense of Place & Space

To understand and be able to explain many social structures and patterns, spatial perspectives are of great importance. When Van der Burgt and Cele (2014) examined children's spatial competence and the perception parents have of their child's abilities, they saw that spatial competence is strongly associated with adults and age. Children may have a very good knowledge of a place and still be incompetent. Their young age automatically required the need for protection and inability to understand and manage socio-cultural contexts. The younger the child, the less likely it is that they are is recognized as a spatially competent actors by both adults and other children, according to the researchers.

Van der Burgt and Cele (2014) argues that central to spatial competence is the experience rather than age. Thus, because of their age, they are prevented from acquiring spatial competence, which in turn can lead to their experiences and knowledge being seen as less important in public planning.

3.4 Participation in Public Planning

“Participation is ultimately about power. Not just political power, but also personal power to act as an individual and citizen” (Percy-Smith, 2010, p. 115). Most statements made to motivate public participation can, according to Innes and Booher (2004), be summarized in five purposes.

1) To find out what the public's preferences are so that the decision-makers can take them into account in their decisions.

2) By integrating citizens' local knowledge into the calculation, decisions can be improved. 3) For the purpose of advancing fairness and justice.

(25)

a) Here, just participation becomes particularly important as the needs and preferences of many groups, especially the least favoured, are not recognized through the usual sources of information and analytical processes.

4) To get legitimacy for public decisions.

5) Since participation within public planning is statutory.

3.4.1 The Rational model

In planning, the rational model is based on a pre-created ideal template for how planning should preferably be carried out and form the basis for the Swedish land-use planning. The template can be changed somewhat in accordance with the context of the planning process and different steps can be performed in parallel for streamlining and feedback of experiences, but the main aspects are always the same. The rational model is intended to facilitate the planner's objective analysis of the various "freestanding" parts and create a controlled development process. The model is often criticised to be a piece of bureaucratic machinery driven by experts and not citizens. It is usually based on one approach and assumes that participants share this approach (Nyström, 2003).

3.4.2 Consultation

In Swedish land-use planning, the consultation is a statutory part of the planning model. Innes and Booher (2004) and Cele and Van der Burgt (2015) all call consultations a bad place to perform a good participatory model at, both from a North American and a Swedish point of view. Disadvantaged groups are all usually under-represented (Innes & Booher, 2004) and despite the legislated consultations, citizen participation has never really become a natural part of Swedish spatial planning. It, therefore, does not fulfil its purpose of attracting a multitude of residents who can influence planning (Cele & Van der Burgt, 2015).

3.4.3 The Collaborative model

Many researchers claim that traditional forms of public participation, especially within sustainable planning, are doomed to fail with its purpose to involve citizens in an equal and democratic way, to disseminate knowledge, and to share power equally between affected stakeholders (Percy-Smith, 2010; Innes & Booher, 2004; Cele & Van der Burgt, 2015; Sandercock, 2004; Jacobs, 1999).

For a working participatory model, Innes and Booher (2004) suggest collaborative participation that incorporates all sectors of the community, and not just the ones with the highest voices or the most organized, to meet in a common framework. Collaborative planning is basically about gathering different stakeholders and engaging them in the planning process, so that they can

Formulation of Goals

Investigation of Action Options, Impact Assessments

Choice of action options, Adoption of plan

Implementation

Experiences

Figure 1: The Rational Model (own illustration)

(26)

make decisions together in a respectful way. The planning model is characterized by the view of planning as a long-term process where the process itself is important and educational, and not just the goal. Participation should be a multi-way interaction where citizens and other actors work and discuss, both in formal and informal platforms, to influence measures in the public arena (ibid).

Central to all research that involves people and individuals’ experiences is communication. It is not only about communicating in the sense of sharing and receiving knowledge, because communication is not just about verbal expressions, it also includes other forms such as body language, play, and art (Cele, 2006). In discussions, people act differently and refer to their own experiences and feelings. This often means that we see things differently when words, objects and contexts are interpreted according to our own frame of reference. But these differences, according to the model's proponents, can be overcome in a fair and organized debate in a consensus-seeking process (Healey, 2003). The intentions of the dialogues and meetings, that are a part of the collaborative planning model, are to produce a collective interest and a greater understanding of different groups of citizens (Innes & Booher, 2004). This differs from the rational model with a consultation in which individual interests, especially from the weaker groups in society, are packaged without being integrated or falls outside the entire process (ibid). But Innes and Booher (2004) also say that the ideal model of full participation will never be fulfilled. On the other hand, they believe that the ideal of participation associated with today's consultations and exhibitions is so strongly dependent on well-informed citizens and responsive bureaucracy that the collaborative model, despite their shortcomings, reach significantly closer to the goal than our traditional ones.

Much of the criticism directed at collaborative planning and communicative planning theory, in general, is that the focus is on the process itself. That the interaction between participants draws attention from the material results, and from the equalities among the participants (Fainstein, 2010). But Healey (2003) argues that the process should not only be regarded as merely a mean. Instead, it should be viewed as something that ultimately gives a process result. In other words, the outcome and process are not separate spheres. And Horelli (1997) argues that through a well-performed communicative dialogue there is hope for inclusion in planning, also for children.

3.5 The Child's Participation in Public Planning

Children have different needs and abilities than adults. They are stakeholders and citizens, but they are not small adults. In the planning area, children are treated as an increasingly important stakeholder group (Frank, 2006). The interest in involving them in planning has for some time grown, and as the CRC became law, it is now a must for all municipalities. But how does this manifest itself in the planning? Do children's participation help land-use planners and society, or is it a necessary evil?

The word ‘participation’ can create great confusion, not least when it is described or fulfilled in connection with the planning process and children. Nevertheless, many consider that

(27)

interpretation and practical transferability are crucial to its success in the planning context (Cele & Van der Burgt, 2015; Percy-Smith, 2010). Despite these laws, Cele and Van der Burgt (2015) together with Derr, Sitzoglou, Gülgönen, and Corona (2018), among others, sees a need to study how effective or rewarding this participation really is, especially when many authorities do not understand how to handle children’s participation.

Cele (2006) summarizes three common ways of approaching participatory work with children. The first is from an adult point of view where children are perceived to be similar to them. The second one is the opposite. Here, children are seen to come from another reality that is not shared with the adults. Both methods can be criticized for their static power relations between children and adults that are not tested or questioned. In the third perspective, the child is not considered as a collective of unison experiences, but treated as individuals with different personalities and skills, as adults but in possession of different competencies. Researchers who adopt this perspective often use methods based on children's skills.

Derr et al. (2018) studied children’s participation in planning for urban resilience and noted that the lack of knowledge about children's participation among municipal leaders, and the lack of municipal frameworks for participation prevented the achievement of children’s participation. In most land-use planning practices children are excluded, even though they are considered to be society’s longest-term stakeholders (Knowles-Yanes, 2005; Winters, 2010). And in comprehensive planning, the focus on children often only becomes visible in descriptions of “child-oriented” projects such as schools, preschools, and playgrounds, but seldom in other parts of the planning (Frank, 2006). Knowles-Yanez (2005) testifies that in cases where they are part of the planning process, children have rarely been considered based on the planning's special needs for children's voices and opinions. Instead, they are participating as part of the consideration of all residents, which means that children's needs often disappear in the void of voices.

3.5.1 Why should Children Participate in Planning?

Percy-Smith (2010) wants to draw attention to the space given to children's participation. When is participation meaningful for children, and how is it constructed? And what are the unspoken power relations that are constructed in different contexts for participation? Percy-Smith (2010) believes that these issues are necessary to keep in mind to ensure a focus on diversity, but also to move participation from tight structures into a wider range of social contexts where agency, identity, and empowerment define participation. Cele and Van der Burgt (2015) see a risk in talking about empowerment as something that makes the individual feel good. Then the feeling can become the goal instead of giving real power of influence to children. In line with Cele and Van der Burgt, Cornwall (2003) wants to differentiate between participation, empowerment, and influence because the words cannot be seen as synonymous. Participation gives the participant a voice, but the voice must be heard and reinforced in order to influence, to give the participants a real meaning.

(28)

Frank (2006) criticises the narrow implementation of children’s experience into planning and argue that, since planning has far-reaching consequences, children are the generation that will experience the results of the decisions the longest and should, therefore, have greater potential for influence in more areas. Many benefits with incorporating children’s concerns and knowledge into land-use planning are similar to those achieved through public participation in general. But according to Frank (2006), the difference lies in the fact that the benefits for children are reinforced as they undergo rapid psychosocial development.

Frank’s (2006) literature study showed that children who that participated in land-use planning gained better confidence and learned to push for change in society. They developed an enthusiasm for community engagement and learned about, and created, an interest in the local environment. Participation has been found to have educational and nurturing values, promote democracy, as well as strengthen the children's position towards the adult norm in society (Cele & Van der Burgt, 2015). Another positive aspect of children’s participation in planning is the potential benefit to other vulnerable social groups, such as low-income earners and elderly people. An example is the public transportation and access to public spaces that are improved groups for all groups because of children’s movement and participation. But Frank (2006) also noticed that a lot of young people in the studies were frustrated by the lack of adult responsiveness in the planning projects and that it affected their will to participate.

3.6 Child-planning with an Adult Perspective

The manipulation of space and place reveals where adults think children should be. When children are given the opportunity to expand their own territory through participation, this threatens to change their cultural status vis-à-vis the adults (Horelli, 1997).

In municipal planning, the comprehensive plan is the basis for all land-use planning. It can be argued that it is in the comprehensive plan the best interests of the child should take departure in municipal planning. A 2008 study by the Swedish Ombudsman for Children showed that children's involvement in the physical planning realm only takes place on a very small and simplistic scale (Cele & Van der Burgt, 2015). If children's involvement fails in the eye of the planner or politicians, their interests are at risk of being represented by adults (ibid).

In Cele and Van der Burgt (2015) study of planners’ understandings of children's participation, they found that many planners seemed to have trouble seeing the child's competence as they often compared it to the definition of adults. This created difficulties in seeing children as a social actor’s that could be integrated into the planning process. Several authors argue that the current planning practice is based solely on an adult standard, which prevents children from both public places and participation (Frank, 2006).

In relation to the CRC, Lindgren and Halldén (2001) examined the influence of children on decisions that affect them. Their study shows that influence and participation are viewed as equal to children’s rights to express themselves. But children's opinions do not have to lead to any changes, because these are opinions that adults only must listen to and then choose whether

When do we ask the Children? - A STUDY ON CHILDREN&apos;S PARTICIPATION IN SWEDISH MUNICIPAL PLANNING