Open Space: People Space

Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 18 No. 2 (2008) ISSN: 1546-2250 Open Space: People Space Thompson, Catharine Ward and Travlou, Penny (2007). New York: Taylor 199 pages. 170. ISBN 9780415415330. This “book note” reviews chapters 3, 6, 7, and 9 of Catharine Ward Thompson and Penny Travlou’s collection, Open Space: People Space. Professor Ward Thompson’s Chapter 3, “Playful Nature, ” draws upon two research studies conducted by the OPENspace Research Centre in several communities inBritain. These studies focused on the use of “woodlands” and included community-wide and visitor surveys as well as focus groups with minority ethnic groups. This chapter provides insights into why some people visit these natural areas and others do not. The findings from these studies have implications for planning, design and management of similar public open spaces, as well as a general message about the importance of getting outdoors at an early age. In fact, one of the most powerful findings of this study is the clear link between the use of woodland areas as a child and the comfort and frequency of use of similar places as an adult. Ward Thompson found that adults who had “nature” experiences as a child visited woodlands more often and were more likely to go walking alone and to feel energetic in natural places or to think that they had a magical quality. Moreover, Ward Thompson proposes that persons without childhood nature experiences might find it more difficult to “change to healthier lifestyles and obtain the benefits of access to natural environments…” (p. 29). A second finding warranting mention is the use of woodlands by teenagers and elderly people. In the urban Scotlandsample, teenagers were the largest number of daily visitors to local woodlands, and those aged over 64 were the largest group of weekly visitors. Ward Thompson briefly addresses the potential for conflict between these two user 294 groups, and discusses the use of woodlands for social gathering and risk taking for adolescents. The anecdotal stories accompanying this chapter provide further clues as to the reasons youth visit these places so often. Chapter 6, “Mapping Youth Spaces in the Public Realm, ” describes the perceptions and use of public spaces by teenagers in Edinburgh. Based upon six focus groups that utilized a “place mapping” methodology at public and private schools, Travlou unravels the complex and diverse role that public spaces play in the lives of youth. The youth-generated maps revealed places where they spend time with their friends and also places they avoid because of other teens’ “ownership. ” Along with places for social interaction, the youths’ favorite places offered freedom from adult supervision, anonymity, safety and accessibility. Interestingly, not all places were viewed similarly by all teens. Some youth thought certain places were dangerous and unwelcoming specifically because of other teen groups that would be there. These groups had “appropriated the place to other participants’ exclusion” (p. 75). Along with uncovering specific places and activities in which these youth engage, the contribution of this study is the case it makes for developing open and inclusive methods for gathering youth views. This place mapping method allowed for a deeper exploration of the dynamics that take place among youth in public areas and revealed youths’ diverse interpretations and uses of public space. As Travlou states, “It is misleading… to treat young people as a homogeneous group with the same needs, expectations and experiences of public space” (p. 75). Universal, or inclusive, design describes places or products that accommodate all humans’ needs. In the design of the physical environment, particularly the public domain, this approach presents an opportunity to design for all disenfranchised groups, including children, ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities. This goal of inclusion has widespread and growing support. Along with that support, however, comes a need for determining the level of inclusion 295 that particular public areas provide. The authors of Chapter 7, Moore and Cosco, describe a multi-method approach for evaluating a park’s level of social inclusion through a case study conducted at Kids Together Park in Cary, North Carolina. The park was created with universal design ideals and extensive community member input. The research method draws upon well-established behavior. . .