Advertisement

“Vulnerable” Children in “Dangerous” Places: Learning Disabled Children in Outdoor Green Space

  • Nadia von BenzonEmail author
Reference work entry
  • 459 Downloads
Part of the Geographies of Children and Young People book series (GCYP, volume 12)

Abstract

This chapter explores the notion of risk as it is managed in the context of the facilitation of learning disabled children’s access to outdoor green space. This context is argued to be particularly fascinating in terms of the governance of risk to children as it draws a spotlight on a particularly “vulnerable” population interacting with a particularly “dangerous” space. The discussion in this chapter focuses on the concept of stigma, a central theme in the disability studies discourse. This chapter suggests that it is through stigmatized institutional and familial practices that learning disabled young people are prevented from engaging with urban green spaces, as a result of both intimidation and overprotection.

Keywords

Disability Green space Risk Independent mobility Ethnography Video diary Mapmaking Danger Vulnerability Power 

References

  1. Aitchison, C. (2000). Young disabled people, leisure and everyday life: Reviewing conventional definitions for leisure studies. Annals of Leisure Research, 3, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austen, L. (2009). The social construction of risk by young people. Health, Risk and Society, 11(5), 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BBC News. (2002). Children’s ‘right to play’ (online). Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2176467.stm. Accessed 1 Nov 2010.
  4. BBC Wildlife Magazine. (2008). Kids and nature: Have our children lost all connection to wildlife? BBC Wildlife Magazine, Aug 2008, 26, 9.Google Scholar
  5. Benwell, M. C. (2013). Rethinking conceptualisations of adult-imposed restriction and children’s experiences of autonomy in outdoor space. Children’s Geographies, 11(1), 28–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, W. H., Odom, S. L., & Conroy, M. A. (2001). An intervention hierarchy for promoting young children’s peer interactions in natural environments. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(3), 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, R. C., & Graefe, A. R. (2007). Constraints to outdoor recreation: Exploring the effects of disabilities on perceptions and participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(1), 156–181.Google Scholar
  8. Carver, A., Timperio, A., & Crawford, D. (2008). Playing it safe: The influence of neighbourhood safety on children’s physical activity – A review. Health and Place, 14, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen, L. L., Fraynt, R. J., Neece, C. L., & Baker, B. L. (2012). Bullying adolescents with intellectual disability. Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 5(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, G. (2005). Disconnected children. ECOS, 26, 26–31.Google Scholar
  11. Countryside Agency. (2005). Diversity review. Cheltenham: Country74side Agency.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, J. M., & Watson, N. (2001). Where are the children’s experiences? Analysing social and cultural exclusion in ‘special’ and ‘mainstream’ schools. Disability and Society, 16(5), 671–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Defra. (2011). The natural choice: Securing the value of nature. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  14. Duzenli, T., Bayramoglu, E., & Ozbilen, A. (2010). Needs and preferences of adolescents in open urban spaces. Scientific Research and Essay, 5(2), 201–216.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, J., Evans, B., & Rich, E. (2003). ‘The only problem is, children will like their chips’: Education and the discursive production of ill health. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(2), 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1986). Disciplinary power and subjection. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1988). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. London: Random House Digital.Google Scholar
  18. Freeman, C. (1995). Planning and play: Creating greener environments. Children’s Environments, 12(3), 381–388.Google Scholar
  19. Furedi, F. (2002). The culture of fear. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  20. Gill, T. (2007). No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. London: Calouste Gulbenkien Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Hallman, B., & Benbow, M. (2007). Family leisure, family photography and zoos: Exploring the emotional geography of families. Social and Cultural Geography, 8(6), 871–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hart, R. (1978). Children’s exploration of tomorrow’s environments. Ekistics, 45, 387–390.Google Scholar
  24. Holloway, S., & Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2012). Neoliberalism, policy localisation and idealised subjects: A case study on educational restructuring in England. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(4), 639–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jahonda, A., Wilson, A., & Stalker, K. (2010). Living with stigma and the self-perceptions of people with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 521–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenks, C. (1996). The postmodern child. In J. Brannen & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Children in families: Research and policy (pp. 13–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Johansson, M. (2003). Social dangers as constraints for pro-environmental travel modes, the perception of parents in England and Sweden. Medio Ambiente y Comportamento Humano, 1, 49–69.Google Scholar
  28. Kytta, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Little, J. (2008). Nature, fear and rurality. In R. Pain & S. Smith (Eds.), Fear: critical geopolitics and everyday life (pp. 87–98). Guildford: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  30. Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.Google Scholar
  31. Malone, K. (2007). The bubble-wrap generation: Children growing up in walled gardens. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 513–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metzel, D., & Walker, P. (2001). The illusion of inclusion: Geographies of the lives of people with developmental disabilities in the United States. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21, 114–128.Google Scholar
  33. Milligan, C., & Bingley, A. (2007). Restorative places or scary spaces? The impact of woodland on the mental well-being of young adults. Health and Place, 13, 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oxarart, A., Monroe, M., & Plate, R. (2013). From play areas to natural areas: The role of zoos in getting families outdoors. Visitor Studies, 16(1), 82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pain, R. (2006). Paranoid parenting? Rematerializing risk and fear for children. Social and Cultural Geography, 7(2), 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parkes, J., & Conolly, A. (2011). Risky positions? Shifting representations of urban youth in the talk of professionals and young people. Children’s Geographies, 9(3–4), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parr, H. (2007). Collaborative film making as process, method and text in mental health research. Cultural Geographies, 14(1), 114–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Percy-Smith, B., & Matthews, H. (2001). Tyrannical spaces: Young people, bullying and the urban neighbourhood. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 6(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Philo, C. (1995). Journey to asylum: A medical-geographical idea in historical context. Journal of Historical Geography, 21(2), 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  41. Solish, A., Perry, A., & Minnes, P. (2010). Participation of children with and without disabilities in social, recreational and leisure activities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Talbot, D. (2013). Early parenting and the urban experience: Risk, community, play and embodiment in an East London neighbourhood. Children’s Geographies, 11(2), 230–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Valentine, G. (1996). Children should be seen and not heard: The production and transgression of adults’ public space. Human Geography, 17(3), 205–220.Google Scholar
  44. Valentine, G., & McKendrick, J. (1997). Children’s outdoor play: Exploring parental concerns about children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood. Geoforum, 28(2), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. von Benzon, N. (2010). Moving on from ramps? The utility of the social model of disability for facilitating experiences of nature for disabled children. Disability and Society, 25, 617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Benzon, N. (2011). Who’s afraid of the big bad woods? Fear and learning disabled children’s access to local nature. Local Environment, 16(10), 1021–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. von Benzon, N., Makuch, K., & Makuch, Z. (2008). The right for disabled children to access the natural environment: A law and policy critique. Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution, 16, 76–105.Google Scholar
  48. Weiner, J., & Sneider, B. (2002). A multisource exploration of the friendship patterns of children with and without learning disability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, E. O. (1986). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wolpert, J. (1980). The dignity of risk. Transactions. Institute of British Geographers, 5(4), 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Woolley, H. (2009). Every child matters in public open spaces. In A. Millie (Ed.), Securing respect: Behavioural expectations and anti-social behaviour in the UK (pp. 75–95). Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geography, Earth and Environmental SciencesPlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations