QUALITY OF LIFE OF CHILDREN IN THE EGYPTIAN COMMUNITIES: INVESTIGATING CURRENT SITUATIONS, CAIRO AS A CASE STUDY Eng. Aya Nazeeh Elkhouly Assistant lecturer, Architecture Department, Faculty of Engineering, MSA PhD Candidate, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.
Prof Dr. Sahar Attia. Professor in urban planning and Design, Architecture Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University
[email protected]
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Anwar Associate Professor, Architecture Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University,
[email protected] Abstract This paper aims at investigating relationship between Quality of Urban Life (QOUL) in different cities‟ contexts and children urban needs, their services, amenities, and security. The paper argues that current approaches of planning are not inclusive of all residents‟ needs, it calls for an approach, which can be more appropriate to Egyptian social, economic, and urban constraints. It digs into the concept of Quality of Life (QOL) for children in the Egyptian context; and focuses on children based services in Greater Cairo Region (GCR). The research consists of two main parts in addition to the introduction and the conclusion. The first part includes the literature review discussing the concept of QOL, and related urban issues. The second part investigates the quality of urban services of children in different socio-economic contexts. This part presents an empirical pilot questionnaire held with a cluster sample of parents, focusing on primary school children from age 7-12 years old. The questionnaire is checking the availability, use and quality of some services. It focuses on current situation, moreover, it discusses how parents deal with urban aspects regarding their children. The discussion reflects the interrelationship between concept of QOUL and services targeting children in order to investigate how to achieve inclusiveness, and effectiveness, appropriate to the Egyptian context. The paper is documenting current perception, provision and use of children services in Cairene communities. Key words: Children‟s right to the city, Quality of Life, livability, urban planning, inclusion, Cairene communities.
1
1. Introduction Calls for city urban quality are the most recent in the field of urban sociology, how cities could be more inclusive and attractive to both residents and investments. It is very important to realize that, children are the main futuristic user. The city planning affects these new generations, as it is a main feature on their perception to the built environment when they grow up. This paper includes literature related to children, and researchers urban interventions related to them, QOUL. The other part is a questionnaire held with a sample of primary school parents; in a trail to correlate children services across city and QOUL. Through this paper, some questions are raised as to investigate current situation includes: How do children understand the built environment? Is it important design cities for children? What is QOUL, how it can be related to planning for children? How to design a child friendly city? Are current services, standards full filling children‟s needs? 2. Children 2.1 Child definition According to UNICEF, and the Egyptian constitution, a child is a citizen whose age is less than 18 years old [1] [2]. Scientists in children psychology divide children to four groups according to intellectual and mental development of their ages [3]. Those four periods are as follows:
Sensory motor period (0-2 years). The preoperational period (2-7years). Period of concrete (7-12years). Period of formal operations (12 years and onwards).
Piaget stated that child is able to recognize the urban environment by the age of 7 years old. By this age he can handle proportions, personal logic and concrete problem solving [4]. The research is considering children from age 7 to 12, it is not dealing with needs of the whole spectrum (018) according to literature, children start to recognize city, moreover not to deal with biological changes of teen aging period. 2.2 Children wellbeing If the city is designed with certain group in mind, principally adults of working age, a question arises: how far other groups are taken into account, in terms of inclusiveness or separation from urban life in the city [5].The authors argue that it has to be considered that children as user group have no actual power of choice, despite presenting more than one third of world population. They are affected by city along their lifetime. However, they are not well considered in urban life. Urban planning for children can be considered as a catalyst to increase city‟s livability and inclusiveness. This can be through concept of small-scale interventions, and short-term actions, moreover, rates and principles [7].
2
Planning an age friendly city through an integrated approach that include outdoor spaces and buildings, Transportation, Housing, Social participation, Respect and social inclusion, Civic participation and employment, Communication and information, Community support and health services. [7] 2.3 Planning cities for children Historically, some planning concepts, were arguing enhancing the right of children to play in the city. One of these initiatives was raised by Jacob Riis on 1897, entitled” Play courts” “Vest Pocket parks “in Europe, more over “home zones “ in United Kingdom, and in New York, USA, there was ”Play Streets” [8]. These ideas were creative and original, however they didn‟t survive because of lack of maintenance plans and funds. The concern about children in city planning was significant in the “THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT” theory by Clarence Perry, during the first half of the 20th century. The original principle of the scheme is that an urban neighborhood should be regarded both as a unit of a larger whole and as a distinct entity in itself [9]. According to the neighborhood approach, the unit must include: an elementary school, small parks and playground, local shops, and a residential environment. It is also considering some urban regulations related to population and physical sizes [10] Some researchers are calling not only for planning for children qualitative accommodation in the city, but also they propose approaches for children to be integrated through urban planning process, in commitment to the convention of children‟s rights to a full active citizenship [11]. When it comes to planning cities for children architects, and planners have to consider their needs. To interact with nature in cities which means: playing, climbing, building huts, listening, looking and understanding.
Growing Up in Cities, 1970.
Kevin Lynch introduced a UNESCO project to recognise low-income teenagers‟ use and their perception of urban environments as a basis for enlisting their ideas and in creating more liveable cities [12]. A project to extend participatory processes to the young, with a focus on urban communities entitled Growing Up in Cities, the project has acquired new relevance in the 1990s and a new version children and youth are a major group who should be involved in participatory programs to improve their environment, including the urban environment [13].
The Children's Manifesto Bologna 1994
One of the main criterion when planning qualitative urban space is to what extent it allows social interaction among all users with different ages. The Children's Manifesto is offering some points to follow despite applications, the goal of their city is to create different experiences, more sport activities, children's theatres, and areas for cycling. Moreover, to establish children‟s council to participate in the decision-making process [14]. According to the Convention on Rights of the Child, there are recommendations, legally binding to all nations which have ratified. The convention specifies that children have a right to seek and impart information and to express their views on all matters that concern them, and the quality of the place where they live undeniably affects their lives [12]
3
3. the Quality of life Quality of life reflects the degree of well-being felt by an individual or group of people inside the city where they use to live [15]. The term “Quality of Life” is used to evaluate a number of factors affecting the standard of living of both individuals and societies [16]. The concept of the quality of life considered as a comprehensive umbrella that contains many different meanings. The environmental aspects related to urban and cities, human and social aspects that reflect individual satisfaction about their lives and their communities and other aspects that reflect the current situation of each field [17]. However, now there are indicators for measuring the QOL. They are not relevant to all residents spectrum nor to all countries [18]. The concept of QOL is contextual and cannot be generalized universally. Despite that there are some common concepts about it. QOL relatively differs from one country to another as it usually considers the context, and the culture in which people live [19]. 2.1.
Quality of urban life
The city is described as “a crucible for health, happiness and prosperity”; according to the innovative initiative Cities for People who takes livability as city‟s ability to be responsive to the needs of its inhabitants [20]. 3. QOUL and children services Previous researches generally agreed that urban planning approaches should concern QOL as one main goal. There have been many calls for children‟s rights in the city. Glover J. argued there are 10 factors or priorities focusing on real-life qualities of cities that matter most to parents and children. These 10 factors include: homes, services, mobility, amenities, public space, subjective safety – and makes clear links from these to urban planning and policy which are density, family–oriented housing, access to schools and childcare, access to public transit, walkability, bikeability, access to nature, access to amenities, public safety, moreover, fun and whimsy [21]. 3.1.
Livable cities
Since first using the term “livable cities” urbanely back in the 1980s to describe quality of life and the characteristics of cities that make them livable, the term was used in countless ways to describe standard of living, rather than quality of life [22]. For some, a livable community makes it convenient to travel by foot, bike, or transit to access nearby stores, parks, and other amenities. For others, affordable housing or open space is more important. An age-friendly city encourages active ageing by optimizing opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age. In practical terms, an age-friendly city adapts its structures and services to be accessible to and inclusive of older people with varying needs and capacities [23]. 4. Pilot Investigation in Cairene communities An investigation including pilot questionnaires was carried out with parents to ensure capturing problems, and causes from different points of view. The questionnaire is divided into three main parts related to children real use of current urban facilities it is directed to parents, in order to define problems observed and investigate current situation through parents‟ perception. 4
4.1. Sample The sample included 173 answers, 168 were valid-parents dealing with target age group-, and 125 answers were counted according to age group (7-12); presenting primary school students. 47.9% was girls, and 52.02% was boys. They were asked about the residence area to investigate whether the answers differs from new settlements or old settlements of greater Cairo. The answer of these questions were remarkable as new settlements and downtown are very close in the percent of residence. Accordingly, the researcher highlighted that it might be better to review kind of interventions that are suitable for both kinds of settlements, however their very different urban patterns (Refer to table 1). 4.2. Methods The questionnaire was held online using Google forms, in addition to some semi-structured interviews to reach parents with no access to online questionnaire. All the questions were written in both Arabic and English languages, with approximate descriptions for issues like distances, and use frequency, etc. Data Analysis mainly descriptive, in addition to some Inferential Statistics to some questions. 4.3. Questionnaire Description During the questionnaire, parents answered three sets of questions. First set was to identify the taken sample, the second set focuses on primary services for children at residence area like schools, public spaces, playing areas, etc. Moreover, it investigates both physical and subjective issues regarding the service availability and use. The third part was includes perception towards urban quality –satisfaction- of their city. 4.4. Results, and discussion The questionnaire was divided into four main patches. Each patch was related to an issue of investigation process. The 1st patch includes primary school as main amenity, and other related children amenities. The second patch is related to public spaces, the third patch investigate public services and spaces use patterns by different socio economic levels. The last patch trying to identify perception of QOUL of residents. After sampling questions related to parents, children age group, gender, educational system, parents were asked about car ownership. Answers showed that 69.8% used to have cars, and 30.2% do not; as an indication to income group. Then they were asked about residence area as following Table 1: The number and percent of children with 7-12 years old, in different Cairene settlements Q1: Residence Area … New settlement Downtown Rural Area Informal Area
percent % 36.80% 40.0% 1.60% 3.20% 5
no. of answers 46 50 2 4
Traveling Abroad Popular District private compounds total answers
2.40% 5.60% 10.40% 100%
3 7 13 125
4.4.1. Primary school as the main amenity This part is discussing three issues including; the availability of a primary school near to home, the location of primary school (distance from home), and the use of transport mode. According to results, children education is less related to residence; area as most of families choose schools, which are not walkable although there might be appropriate school in residence area. Egypt has many national and international educational systems currently; what lead to unnecessary being in the neighborhood primary school. Planning on the idea of primary school as the cell center used to be a very important key stone in planning theories [24]. This was one assumption research team needed to ensure and start more investigation about more appropriate alternative for children urban livability. Some questions were asked to parents regarding the school location, distance, and transportation.
Q2: In your opinion, is there an appropriate school for your child in your district? Yes 53.40% No 38.80% I don't know 7.80%
Q3: How does your child usually go to school? % 12.80% 54.4% 1% 34.4% 2.4% 3.2%
walking Bus school bicycle private car public transportation informal transportation
No. 16 68 1 43 3 4
Fig.2: presents means of mobility used in reaching school daily
6
Q3: Approximate distance between home and primary school? Distance
%
100-500 m 501-1000m 1-5 km 6-10 km 11-20km 20-30km more than 30 km Other (don‟t go to school). Total sample
12.00% 16.00% 23.20% 32.00% 8.80% 5.60% 0.00% 2.40% 100.00%
No. of answers
15 20 29 40 11 7 0 3 125
Fig.1: presents the distances between residence area and primary school.
4.4.2. . Services provision and use Parents were also asked about their recognitions to public facilities existing on their communities. A significant observation. Result was that almost one third of parents are not familiar with facilities like community library, public garden, regardless their existence. Another significant was that some people consider paid private facilities as if they are public like clubs malls playing areas, privatized gardens etc.120 parents answered this question; they were allowed to choose multiple choices. Q4: what are the accessible amenities in your residence district? Library
Public Garden Playing Area Sports center for children I don't know no facilities at all Others (clubs) Total no. of answers
7
No. of parent 15 26 17 45 34 8 14 120
% 12.5% 21.7% 14.2% 37.5% 28.3% 6.7% 11.7%
Fig.3 presents accessible amenities in communities
After discussing this question, parents were asked also about if they let, their children use these facilities independently, and about the region or borders of letting their children play safely (objectively and subjectively). This part of discussion was obviously different from one social class to another. When it was asked to informal areas residents, most of them leave, their children play safely not only in front of their homes but sometimes the border was community center. However, in most of middle income society, parents are not allowing their children to use facilities without their supervision except in clubs (which they also considered as if it is a public urban space). In private compounds, it was mostly about subjective safety from parents' perspective. Over all most of parents, do not allow children to use public nearby facilities alone. The reasons varied from social, subjective safety, inappropriate facilities to objective issues like distance, relation to vehicles, hygienic issues, affordability, or even availability. 4.4.3. Streets and gardens On micro urban scale, adults were asked about the situation of urban context from the perspective of children use ability; issues like efficiency, activities, pleasant and encouraging to use, etc. Q5: Do you think current situation of each of the following items is satisfactory for children use (Efficiency, activities, pleasant and encouraging to use, etc.) Local streets Main streets local public gardens public gardens Yes 29 27.4% 17 16.2% 23 22.1% 21 20.4% No 61 57.5% 77 73.3% 46 44.2% 47 45.6% NA(Not Available) 16 15.1% 11 10.5% 35 33.7% 35 34.0% Total 106 105 104 103
8
Fig.4: presenting current situation of gardens and streets for children use ability
4.4.4. Recreational amenities Parents where asked generally about urban livability. [25] Some main questions about their recreational patterns, public spaces, and children preferable activities. 66% of families go out on weekly basis. However, 16.8% are less frequent; other3.4% are using public spaces daily. Answers were different mainly on two levels. The first level was according to residence location; most of families living in new settlements like Sheikh Zayed, 6th of October city, and new Cairo prefer malls, travelling, moreover going to clubs, which was common with downtown. Where residents give most of answers to walking, going to club. Picnics to public gardens and Nile fronts were mostly chosen by informal, and high dense settlements like Giza, Feisal, Dar el Salam, etc. Shopping and going to clubs were mostly chosen by different socio economic levels; which is second level of analysis. Activities like biking, running, and picnics were less common, however they still exist. Table 2: presents frequency of family recreational activities Q6: How often do you go out to public spaces with your children? 3.40% Daily 66.40% Weekly 16.80% Monthly 13.40% Rarely 0 Never Q7: What are the activities you usually do with your children during (vacations/ weekends)? No. % Going to club 95 80.50% Picnics 53 44.90% Shopping 71 60.20% Going to public spaces, water fronts 48 40.70% Walking 26 22% Biking 16 13.60% Traveling 3 2.50% Paying at home/ family commitments 4 3.30% Total no. of responses. 120 9
Fig.5: presenting recreational patterns of residents
4.4.5. Rating QOUL, Livability Parents where alo asked subjectivley to rate the QOUL in the community they live in, after that , they where aked to perotrize importance of 10 facetors that affect family and children livability in city according to literature. More than 60 % of residents rate QOUL with less than three. 23.5% rate it as acceptable, and least go towards satisfaction. Q8:Please rate your overall satisfaction of the quality of urban life in your city (0-5, 5= complete satisfaction) Total no. of 0 1 2 3 4 5 answers 17 28 27 28 7 12 119 100.0% 14.30% 23.50% 22.7% 23.5% 5.9% 10.1%
Fig.6: presenting residents overall satisfaction towards QOUL
However, these two questions were asked subjectively without many details on how to rate and describe each factor. They can highlight the current vision of parents towards their families‟ livability in city. Moreover, to rearrange these ten factors according to adults' perception. (This may need more scientific investigation; with different scientific tools in further studies).
10
Q9: When choosing a city to live in, please rate the importance of the following factors to you and your family Livability factor Density Family Oriented Housing Access To School Access To Public Transit Walkability Bikeability Access To Nature Access To Amenities Public Safety Fun And Whimsy
not important N % o.
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Total answ ers 100 %
slightly important
moderate
important
very important
4
3.5%
29
25.4%
33
28.9%
32
28.1%
16
14.0%
114
7
6.5%
17
15.7%
27
25.0%
38
35.2%
19
17.6%
108
1
0.9%
11
9.8%
23
20.5%
22
19.6%
55
49.1%
112
1 1
9.6%
9
7.8%
31
27.0%
21
18.3%
43
37.4%
115
0.9%
16
14.4%
23
20.7%
24
21.6%
47
42.3%
111
14.3%
21
18.8%
27
24.1%
20
17.9%
28
25.0%
112
1
0.9%
29
26.9%
2
1.9%
29
26.9%
47
43.5%
108
0
0.0%
9
7.8%
25
21.7%
25
21.7%
56
48.7%
115
1
0.9%
5
4.3%
22
19.1%
12
10.4%
75
65.2%
115
2
1.7%
12
10.3%
34
29.3%
31
26.7%
37
31.9%
116
1 1 6
Fig.6: presenting residents priorities regarding 10 factors of children livable city by Glover,2015
5.
Conclusion.
Creating a friendly environment to children in the city is a sensible choice for municipal authorities around the country. This requires a participatory approach of planning in which local authorities, communities, families and children can and must work together to transform today‟s often unfriendly urban settings into child-friendly cities – as cities friendly to children are ones that are friendly to all. The paper discussed some main concepts related to QOUL, Livability, and child friendly city, focusing more on current investigation process through pilot questionnaire. It was clear though discussion that however authorities may be applying planning theories; it might not be the most efficient way from user perspective. Another important issue is realizing that working to enhance 11
Quality of life in communities should include both downtown Cairo, in addition to new settlements. Most important topics from parents perspective is subjective and objective safety of their children. There is an important note about how people perceive the public space concept, and their right to the city. Moreover it was recognized that there are common factors in high-income areas and informalities related to children free move border; it was related to the urban spaces children can access, where they are already known. The most suffering social group was middle income where they almost have no urban pace except clubs-which cannot be considered as full public space- in addition to shopping malls. In all social classes, people are not well satisfied with the quality of their cities. Even in low densities residence areas, the public gardens are not reachable and streets are not walkable neither bikable. Primary school is not considered as neighborhood center in most of cairn communities in most of both down town and new settlements due to different categories and influences affect education not children. A successful city recognizes its natural assets, its citizens and its environment and builds on these to ensure the best possible returns. Cities of today are less adaptable with the comprehensive rigid development plans, which were put decades ago. The concepts of planning history must be rethought when it comes to policies, practicalities and ideologies, and indeed the role of planners. The needs of residents and how to be fulfilled can no more considered as a luxury. It becomes the responsibility of governments, planners and civil society. However, the pilot investigation highlighted that there is relationship between planning cities for children and the quality of built environment. More investigation is needed to find the type of relationship, and to reach the types of interventions needed to enhance Quality of life in Egyptian cities. Since most people live in urban environments, and especially in large urban environments that we call cities. Finally, a successful city should balance all of social, economic and environmental needs: it has to respond to pressure from all sides. A successful city should offer security, infrastructure. It should also put the needs and wanting of its citizens at the forefront of all its planning activities. 6.
References
[1] [2]
Egyptian constitution, (2013), Article no.80, p. 24. UNICEF website, https://www.unicef.org/ , Aug.2017. Piaget, Jean. The origins of intelligence in children. Vol. 8. No. 5. New York: International Universities Press, 1952. Vijender Sharma,( 2011);child psychology. Biggs, S., & Carr, A. (2015). Age-and child-friendly cities and the promise of intergenerational space. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(1), 99-112. Bickerstaff, K., Bulkeley, H., & Painter, J. O. E. (2009). Justice, nature and the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 591-600.
[3] [4] [5] [6]
12
[7] [8] [9]
[10]
[11] [12] [13]
[14] [15] [16] [17]
[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009). What makes a community age‐friendly: A review of international literature. Australasian journal on ageing, 28(3), 116-121. Hart, R., (2002).Containing children: some lessons on planning for play from New York City.Environment&Urbanization Vol 14 No 2 Watson, D., Plattus, A., & Shibley, R. G. (2003). Time-Saver Standards for Urban Design. Steiner, J. F. (1930). Neighborhood and Community Planning. Clarence Arthur Perry Wayne D. Heydecker Ernest P. Goodrich Thomas Adams Edward M. Bassett Robert Whitten. Derr, V., Chawla, L., Mintzer, M., Cushing, D. F., & Van Vliet, W. (2013). A city for all citizens: integrating children and youth from marginalized populations into city planning. Buildings, 3(3), 482-505. Chawla, L. (1997). Growing up in cities: a report on research under way. Environment and Urbanization, 9(2), 247-252. Malone, K. (2006). A key player in a global movement for child friendly cities. Creating Child Friendly Cities: New Perspectives and Prospects, 13. Francis, M., & Lorenzo, R. (2006). 13 Children and city design: proactive process and the „renewal‟of childhood. Children and their environments: Learning, using and designing spaces, 217. Johnson, D. L. (1974). The" Quality of Life" Concept: A Potential New Tool for Decision-Makers General Organization for Physical Planning, 2012 report. Brdulak, A., & Brdulak, H. (2017). Happy City-How to Plan and Create the Best Livable Area for the People. Cummins, R. A. (2016). The theory of subjective wellbeing homeostasis: A contribution to understanding life quality. In A Life Devoted to Quality of Life (pp. 61-79). Springer International Publishing. Lotfi, S., Faraji, A., Hataminejad, H., & Pourahmad, A. (2011). A study of urban quality of life in a developing country. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 232. Stimmel, C. L. (2015). Building Smart Cities: Analytics, ICT, and Design Thinking. CRC Press. Glover, Jillan, (2015). 10 Ways to Build a City for Children, https://rethinkingchildhood.com Cities for People (n.d.), “Livability.” Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http:// Livable city,www.livablecities.org , accessed March 2017. Design for “Age- Friendly” City workshop -IRD - IUSD Cairo.2017. Prince, H., Allin, L., Sandseter, E. B. H., & Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E. (2013). Outdoor play and learning in early childhood from different cultural perspectives. International Making Cities Livable, www.livablecities.org.June,2017
13
