Search

One of the under-represented groups in participatory urban research is very young children (0–3 years old). Very young children from disadvantaged neighbourhoods, particularly in global cities, such as Istanbul, often have to negotiate unfriendly urban spaces in their daily routines. These routines consist of intertwined events of caregivers and children, as care duties of caregivers frame their joint daily lives. Based on questionnaires and participatory mapping with full-time mothers from Istanbul, we argue that a compact design of neighbourhoods, which merges public spaces relevant to families with young children in combined destinations, is critical towards creating inclusive urban environments.

Risk Sensitive Land Use Planning (RSLUP), a process that has implications for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) as well as Urban Planning and Development, requires the participation of the public and wider stakeholders. Public participation has been conceptualized in Nepal’s disaster governance after the country transitioned into a federal democracy. It has undergone decentralization as part of the federal reform process, including its undertakings towards DRR. However, it remains unclear what this redistribution of authority means for public participation in relation to RSLUP. It is important to ask whether the current institutional set up and policy instruments are conducive for public participation. Therefore, this article examines how participation is construed within relevant federal and local policies in Nepal. The article presents a thematic analysis of leading policy instruments. The research reveals that participation emerges as a constitutional principle but the concept of participation itself is characterised by definitional ambiguity. Although most policies encourage the creation of spaces for public participation, this research reveals that these spaces are limited in implementation and impact. Lack of clear guidelines on how to design and implement public participation can hinder effective practice. Non-binding language within policy documents makes it difficult to understand the intended outcome of participation. This paper illustrates the extent to which participation has become a malleable construct that can have repercussions for ways in which RSLUP is enacted and enforced, in both Nepal and other countries who share similar socio-political context.

Architecture is an integral part of human activities and affects everyday experiences and actions. Today architects must face and respond to the challenge of creating built environments that support, nurture, enrich, and celebrate human activities. The creation of cities, towns, and buildings has always been the result of a combination of cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors and needs. New demands require architects to take pro-active responsibility for these factors, and promote designs that support a responsive environment. In addition, social and ethical approaches to the profession, which are amenable to invigorate such a responsibility, need to be considered and acted upon. In response to the continuous transformations of the profession and the changing role of the architect three concepts have emerged in the last three decades: these are programming or pre-designing, post-occupancy evaluation-POE or building performance evaluation-BPE, and community design or user participation (Salama, 2015). Due to client/user dissatisfaction with the built environment and the continuous lack of public awareness of what architects do and how they do it, these concepts must continue to evolve in a responsible manner. While they have not long been part of architectural professional practice, they are now seen as a valid and important part of practice and research in architecture, although not, in practice, fully integrated as a triad. They must be viewed as the basis for social and ethical approaches to architecture since they are characterised by generic qualities that cover a wide range of factors architects must respond to in their practices. Such qualities include the following: • Identifying human and social needs within the context of the environment in which socio-behavioural, geo-cultural, climatic, political, and economic aspects are employed. • Evaluating the built environment toward making appropriate adaptations and adjustments. • Involving people affected by the built environment in the process of decision-making.

This report examines how caregivers meet the socio-spatial needs of their young children within their neighbourhood. Three daily living domains – public space, mobility in and around the neighbourhood, and quality of the built environment are examined. Empirical findings from selected disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Pune (India) and Istanbul (Turkey) highlight everyday spatial needs of caregivers and young children. By developing comparative work, the report points towards the affordances that space (particularly communal spaces) offers caregivers, and the need to better understand contextual and diverse spatial requirements. Within the two different geographies, we see the multifaceted nature and use of public spaces, issues concerning safety, use of spaces in front of the home, on the one hand, and on the other, we also see the marginalized position of caregivers and children in high-density urban areas. Though in both the locations, various activities/ initiatives are taking place to shed light on the needs of young children, the support for early urban childhoods through planning and design is far from optimal.

Children's participation in the decision-making and design of urban public spaces is crucial for achieving inclusive cities. International covenants have recognized the importance of participation as a right. Having adhered to these agreements, Turkey is obliged to enable children's participation in all public matters that concern them, including shaping urban spaces. This paper analyses national and local legislation in Turkey and Istanbul to distil how children's right to participate is legislated and institutionalised. It shows that lack of integrated child-responsive legislation, accounting for children's individuality, and lack of collaboration between national and local governments are the root of the problem.