（英）伍利·海倫（英）索美列斯特-沃德·阿利松（英）布拉德肖·凱特 湯湃

1 背景

1.1 英格蘭對(duì)兒童戶外環(huán)境支持政策的變化

簽署了《聯(lián)合國兒童權(quán)利公約》[1]的國家長(zhǎng)期以來都在以不同的方式維護(hù)兒童游戲的權(quán)利。以英格蘭為例，2008—2010年勞動(dòng)黨政府頒布了《兒童計(jì)劃》（Children’s Plan）[2]和《游戲策略》（Play Strategy）[3]2項(xiàng)政策來切實(shí)保護(hù)兒童游戲的權(quán)利。其中，《游戲策略》的主要內(nèi)容為：政府將投入2.35億英鎊（約30億人民幣，按2008年匯率計(jì)算）用于全英格蘭地區(qū)共3 500個(gè)自然型兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的新建和傳統(tǒng)游戲場(chǎng)地的自然化改造，從而增加兒童與自然接觸的機(jī)會(huì)并提高游戲場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值[3]。在過去的50年間，英格蘭的兒童游戲場(chǎng)地與世界各地的游戲場(chǎng)地設(shè)計(jì)思路基本一樣，通常采用“組合器械–圍欄–地毯”3種元素簡(jiǎn)單堆砌的形式來布置兒童游戲場(chǎng)地。這種千篇一律的兒童游戲場(chǎng)地在筆者之前的研究中被概括為“KFC”（kit, fence and carpet，即組合器械、圍欄、地毯）游戲場(chǎng)地[4]。這種“KFC”游戲場(chǎng)地沒有因地制宜地使用自然景觀材料，也無法為兒童提供豐富的游戲活動(dòng)類型，游戲場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值[5]沒有得到充分挖掘。

為了推動(dòng)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地改造提升項(xiàng)目在地方層面落實(shí)，在《兒童計(jì)劃》和《游戲策略》的基礎(chǔ)上，陸續(xù)發(fā)布了2份補(bǔ)充文件，分別是《為了游戲而設(shè)計(jì)》（Design for Play）[6]和《游戲中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理》（Managing Risk in Play Provision）[7]。前者提出了設(shè)計(jì)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的10條基本原則,并且列舉了大量極具啟發(fā)性的設(shè)計(jì)案例；后者在對(duì)游戲場(chǎng)地的“安全”“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”“危害”和“傷害”等相似概念進(jìn)行明確定義的同時(shí)，提出了戶外游戲場(chǎng)地風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管控的范圍和方式。不僅如此，《游戲中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理》也創(chuàng)新性地提出了“游戲的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)收益分析”（Risk Benefit Analysis）[7]概念，支持在戶外游戲場(chǎng)地中保留適當(dāng)程度的游戲風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，以便讓游戲過程更富有挑戰(zhàn)，增加戶外游戲的趣味性?！坝螒虻娘L(fēng)險(xiǎn)收益分析”是通過較為客觀的態(tài)度看待兒童戶外游戲的潛在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，對(duì)游戲趣味性與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)性的對(duì)立和統(tǒng)一進(jìn)行了科學(xué)的引導(dǎo)，其核心思想對(duì)兒童游戲風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管控政策及法規(guī)的制定產(chǎn)生了重要的影響?？傮w來說，這2份補(bǔ)充文件為地方政府落實(shí)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地改造提供了關(guān)鍵的政策說明和實(shí)踐框架。

然而，2010年英國大選以后，保守黨（自由民主黨）政府重新執(zhí)政，政府預(yù)算縮減，取消了對(duì)兒童戶外游戲場(chǎng)地改造提升項(xiàng)目的資助。除了已經(jīng)投入建設(shè)的或者已經(jīng)簽訂合同而無法取消的兒童游戲場(chǎng)地項(xiàng)目得以繼續(xù)建造完成，其他的計(jì)劃項(xiàng)目都被迫中止。而之前提及的《兒童計(jì)劃》《游戲策略》以及補(bǔ)充文件《為了游戲而設(shè)計(jì)》和《游戲中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理》這些關(guān)于兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的政策文件也同樣被束之高閣。此后，由于政府不再為兒童戶外游戲場(chǎng)地建設(shè)買單，兒童戶外游戲場(chǎng)地的建設(shè)或改造只能寄希望于專業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)師自發(fā)的熱情。然而，即使是從政策支持型轉(zhuǎn)向了自發(fā)建設(shè)型，優(yōu)質(zhì)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的營(yíng)造也需要非政府機(jī)構(gòu)提供一定的啟動(dòng)資金。

1.2 與社區(qū)合作的工作方式

開展社區(qū)合作是20世紀(jì)70年代以來英格蘭社區(qū)規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目的基本要求之一。在《城鎮(zhèn)和鄉(xiāng)村計(jì)劃法（1970年）》中明確規(guī)定了規(guī)劃人員需要與社區(qū)居民互動(dòng)交流。但是，該法案并未對(duì)規(guī)劃人員參與的身份或方式做出具體規(guī)定。同樣，近些年政府福利彩票基金（National Lottery）發(fā)起的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施資助項(xiàng)目也明確要求申請(qǐng)人需詳細(xì)考慮社區(qū)的參與方式，并在項(xiàng)目申報(bào)中明確描述相關(guān)內(nèi)容。然而，由于缺乏關(guān)于社區(qū)參與方式的指導(dǎo)，這些項(xiàng)目申請(qǐng)中提及的社區(qū)參與方式都比較單一，通常采用社區(qū)會(huì)議或社區(qū)展覽的簡(jiǎn)單方式。這些簡(jiǎn)單方式在雪莉·阿恩斯坦（Sherry R. Arnstein）1969年所著的《公民階梯》中被形容為“象征性地參與”[8]，即并非真正意義上的參與。

在21世紀(jì)初，大樂透福利基金（Big Lottery）對(duì)項(xiàng)目申請(qǐng)條件進(jìn)行了修改，明確了項(xiàng)目不僅要使社區(qū)受益，而且要使社區(qū)真正地參與到項(xiàng)目中。此外，《兒童計(jì)劃》項(xiàng)目的資助方Play Builder基金會(huì)在后續(xù)的資助項(xiàng)目中，也采用社區(qū)成員直接參與決定并監(jiān)督經(jīng)費(fèi)支出的方式，來確保社區(qū)真正參與到項(xiàng)目中來。然而也有人指出，這些項(xiàng)目執(zhí)行時(shí)間普遍較短，沒有足夠的時(shí)間讓居民真正參與進(jìn)社區(qū)的管理和維護(hù)中。事實(shí)也的確如此，基金資助的大規(guī)模建設(shè)項(xiàng)目一旦完成，項(xiàng)目中的各個(gè)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的管理和維護(hù)只能根據(jù)場(chǎng)地情況由場(chǎng)地所有人自行解決。

聚焦于兒童群體，兒童的參與權(quán)（兒童參與決策的權(quán)力）是《聯(lián)合國兒童權(quán)利公約》（下文簡(jiǎn)稱《公約》）中明確提出的內(nèi)容。為響應(yīng)《公約》的倡議，世界各國普遍開展關(guān)于兒童參與的研究，但少有研究詳細(xì)描述由兒童參與所帶來的社區(qū)長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)發(fā)展。

基于以上背景，本研究將深入解讀于2011—2014年在英格蘭北部城市謝菲爾德市開展的“與自然共生”社區(qū)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地營(yíng)造項(xiàng)目，主要描述以兒童為主要參與人群的多樣的社區(qū)參與型項(xiàng)目的開展方式，以便為社區(qū)參與型項(xiàng)目提供更加豐富的參考；同時(shí)，也將對(duì)兒童參與游戲場(chǎng)地改造項(xiàng)目所帶來的積極效果和長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)影響進(jìn)行詳細(xì)論述，以便推動(dòng)兒童參與社區(qū)環(huán)境更新。

2“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目?jī)?nèi)容

2.1 項(xiàng)目源起與發(fā)展

“與自然共生”是一項(xiàng)由“大樂透福利基金社區(qū)項(xiàng)目計(jì)劃”（Big Lottery Reaching Communities）資助的為期3年（2011—2014年）的兒童游戲場(chǎng)地改造項(xiàng)目。其以改善城市公共綠色空間中的兒童戶外游戲場(chǎng)地為目標(biāo)，由謝菲爾德市政管理局的社會(huì)福利住房管理部門與福利基金會(huì)共同負(fù)責(zé)開展。謝菲爾德市為占城市人口總量20%的城市低收入人群提供了低廉的福利住房，然而近些年由于政府預(yù)算縮減，福利住房社區(qū)中用于維護(hù)戶外游戲場(chǎng)地的資金減少，導(dǎo)致一些兒童戶外游戲設(shè)備因缺少維護(hù)而破損甚至拆除。這樣低維護(hù)的情況嚴(yán)重影響了戶外活動(dòng)場(chǎng)地質(zhì)量，居民不再去社區(qū)戶外活動(dòng)場(chǎng)地，以致社區(qū)戶外活動(dòng)場(chǎng)地閑置、公共綠地浪費(fèi)、綠地服務(wù)效率低下。

“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目的源起可以追溯至2006年，一位謝菲爾德住房管理部門的官員在聆聽了筆者關(guān)于如何將較低游戲價(jià)值的傳統(tǒng)“KFC”游戲場(chǎng)地改造成為更具趣味性的自然型游戲場(chǎng)地的講座以后深受啟發(fā)，并產(chǎn)生了對(duì)謝菲爾德市現(xiàn)存兒童游戲場(chǎng)地進(jìn)行自然化改造的想法。經(jīng)過討論，筆者與該住房管理部門官員均認(rèn)識(shí)到，雖然在謝菲爾德市進(jìn)行兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的自然化改造的想法具有較高的可行性，但時(shí)機(jī)并不十分成熟。于是筆者與福利住房管理部門關(guān)于兒童游戲和社區(qū)環(huán)境改造進(jìn)行了持續(xù)的討論，歷經(jīng)18個(gè)月的醞釀與深入探討以后，兒童游戲場(chǎng)地改造計(jì)劃重新被正式提上了日程。在這之后，有2件重要的事情也極大地推動(dòng)了計(jì)劃的實(shí)施。其一是謝菲爾德大學(xué)本科學(xué)生的設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐課程選擇在福利住房社區(qū)進(jìn)行，讓學(xué)生有機(jī)會(huì)在福利住房社區(qū)中與居民共度時(shí)光并深入了解居民的需求，為社區(qū)中兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的優(yōu)化設(shè)計(jì)提出了充分依據(jù)的同時(shí)，也為社區(qū)環(huán)境提升提供了思路；其二是團(tuán)隊(duì)在與謝菲爾德市住房部合作的項(xiàng)目中，制定了整個(gè)城市游戲場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值提升策略。這個(gè)合作項(xiàng)目的成功為后續(xù)合作奠定了良好的基礎(chǔ)。

2010年，受謝菲爾德大學(xué)提供的“知識(shí)交流基金”資助，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)在第一個(gè)社區(qū)進(jìn)行了兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的優(yōu)化提升設(shè)計(jì)；后續(xù)評(píng)估顯示，優(yōu)化設(shè)計(jì)后的游戲場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值得到了顯著提升。該項(xiàng)目的成功引起了謝菲爾德和羅瑟勒姆野生動(dòng)物基金會(huì)（Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust）的關(guān)注，該基金會(huì)主動(dòng)提出組建聯(lián)合團(tuán)隊(duì)以共同開展兒童游戲場(chǎng)地提升項(xiàng)目。最后，謝菲爾德住房管理部門、謝菲爾德和羅瑟漢姆野生動(dòng)物基金會(huì)以及謝菲爾德大學(xué)三方共同組成聯(lián)合研究團(tuán)隊(duì)，并獲得了“大樂透福利基金社區(qū)計(jì)劃”的資助。至此，“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目于2011年7月開始正式執(zhí)行并在接下來的幾年中在謝菲爾德市的24個(gè)社區(qū)完成了兒童游戲場(chǎng)地自然化改造。

聯(lián)合研究團(tuán)隊(duì)包括了風(fēng)景園林師、社區(qū)活動(dòng)組織專員、住房管理部門官員、項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理、項(xiàng)目顧問和項(xiàng)目主要負(fù)責(zé)人等兒童友好環(huán)境從業(yè)人員；由謝菲爾德住房管理部門、謝菲爾德和羅瑟漢姆野生動(dòng)物基金會(huì)以及謝菲爾德大學(xué)共同負(fù)責(zé)。此外，謝菲爾德市政部中的住房管理部門和公園鄉(xiāng)村管理部門也參與了部分小組會(huì)議。項(xiàng)目?jī)?nèi)容主要包括完成2007年游戲策略項(xiàng)目中遺留下來的游戲場(chǎng)地的改造更新，以及在更多的社區(qū)中推進(jìn)參與型項(xiàng)目實(shí)施。至此，“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目不僅完成了中途叫停的游戲策略中的遺留改造項(xiàng)目，而且也推動(dòng)了更廣泛的兒童參與型項(xiàng)目的落地，成為非政府機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)兒童游戲環(huán)境改造的示范項(xiàng)目。

“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目實(shí)際超額完成了計(jì)劃目標(biāo)，參與該項(xiàng)目的組織和機(jī)構(gòu)除了計(jì)劃書中的所列舉的，還包括了租戶和居民協(xié)會(huì)（Tenants and Residents Associations, TARAs）、友鄰團(tuán)體、社區(qū)服務(wù)中心、社區(qū)庇護(hù)所和敬老院、殘疾人服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)、流浪人員收容機(jī)構(gòu)、社區(qū)野生動(dòng)物保護(hù)機(jī)構(gòu)、片區(qū)警察、教堂、社區(qū)圖書館、社會(huì)福利住房提供機(jī)構(gòu)、城市藝術(shù)家和謝菲爾德皇家動(dòng)物保護(hù)協(xié)會(huì)（Sheffield Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, RSPCA）等，以及托兒所（0～5歲的兒童）、小學(xué)（6～10歲的兒童）、中學(xué)（11～18歲的兒童）、兒童俱樂部、青年團(tuán)體、謝菲爾德跑酷小組、流動(dòng)兒童圖書館和兒童臨終關(guān)懷中心等與兒童相關(guān)的組織，實(shí)現(xiàn)了社會(huì)范圍的聯(lián)合合作，形成了廣泛的社會(huì)影響力。

2.2 豐富多樣的兒童參與型社區(qū)活動(dòng)

在《游戲策略》補(bǔ)充政策執(zhí)行期間，全英格蘭共有24個(gè)社區(qū)被列為兒童游戲場(chǎng)地提升項(xiàng)目的示范點(diǎn)。在這24個(gè)社區(qū)中，研究人員對(duì)兒童想如何使用這些活動(dòng)場(chǎng)地進(jìn)行了深入了解，以便在設(shè)計(jì)方案中滿足兒童的愿望。項(xiàng)目通常采用非正式觀察的方式，觀察記錄兒童及其他年齡段的社區(qū)成員對(duì)社區(qū)公共場(chǎng)地的使用情況，以實(shí)際使用情況為依據(jù)決定游戲設(shè)備或其他公共設(shè)施的設(shè)計(jì)或布置細(xì)節(jié)。研究團(tuán)隊(duì)也與社區(qū)成員就社區(qū)的綠色場(chǎng)地和游戲場(chǎng)地的更新計(jì)劃進(jìn)行了討論，更加深入地了解了居民對(duì)社區(qū)公共空間的使用需求。研究之所以能在社區(qū)中順利展開得益于團(tuán)隊(duì)中住房管理部門的工作人員與許多社區(qū)居民相熟識(shí)。社區(qū)居民愿意與研究團(tuán)隊(duì)分享觀點(diǎn)并接受研究人員的觀察。對(duì)比之前的社區(qū)參與項(xiàng)目中采用的社區(qū)會(huì)議或展覽這些簡(jiǎn)單的社區(qū)參與方式，該項(xiàng)目通過邀請(qǐng)社區(qū)中的兒童和成人參與社區(qū)發(fā)展討論真正實(shí)現(xiàn)了阿因斯坦所描述的更深入層次的社區(qū)參與。

根據(jù)每個(gè)社區(qū)的不同情況，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)組織了一系列豐富多樣的社區(qū)活動(dòng)，以便更好地推進(jìn)社區(qū)參與。在這些豐富的社區(qū)活動(dòng)中，團(tuán)隊(duì)中的社區(qū)活動(dòng)組織專員與住房管理部官員通常作為主要組織者全程參與，其他合作伙伴根據(jù)自身特色和特長(zhǎng)靈活加入。下文將著重列舉一些成功舉辦的特色社區(qū)活動(dòng)，以期為社區(qū)參與型活動(dòng)提供參考，包括：“歡樂日”活動(dòng)、種植活動(dòng)、創(chuàng)意活動(dòng)、趣味運(yùn)動(dòng)會(huì)、寵物狗展覽、“運(yùn)動(dòng)日”和“記憶中的街巷”活動(dòng)。

2.2.1“歡樂日”活動(dòng)

“歡樂日”是每個(gè)示范社區(qū)開展的第一個(gè)活動(dòng)，為包含兒童在內(nèi)的社區(qū)成員創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)走出家門在社區(qū)綠色公共空間中與自然接觸的機(jī)會(huì)（圖1）。在“歡樂日”活動(dòng)中，項(xiàng)目團(tuán)隊(duì)會(huì)正式將更新改造項(xiàng)目的情況介紹給社區(qū)兒童和其他年齡段的居民，并與社區(qū)居民就場(chǎng)地的未來使用潛能進(jìn)行初步交流?！皻g樂日”活動(dòng)包含的具體內(nèi)容主要有：搭建小木屋、武術(shù)表演、工藝美術(shù)體驗(yàn)、充氣城堡、臨時(shí)沙池、團(tuán)隊(duì)游戲和兒童面部彩繪等。在活動(dòng)場(chǎng)地，團(tuán)隊(duì)會(huì)為參與活動(dòng)的社區(qū)居民提供一個(gè)供應(yīng)冷熱飲品、蛋糕和冰激凌的茶點(diǎn)補(bǔ)給站。這些茶點(diǎn)補(bǔ)給站通常會(huì)聚集很高的人氣，使社區(qū)活動(dòng)受到更廣泛的歡迎。

2.2.2 種植活動(dòng)

種植活動(dòng)也是受到普遍歡迎的社區(qū)活動(dòng)之一。在該活動(dòng)中兒童在社區(qū)綠地種植了多種宿根花卉、藥用植物、藤蔓植物以及果樹，不僅使社區(qū)綠地的植物多樣性得到了提高，而且也活躍了社區(qū)氛圍，讓兒童真正地參與到社區(qū)環(huán)境的改造中。在種植活動(dòng)結(jié)束后，孩子們可以把剩下的苗木帶回家，種在自家的花園里（圖2）。后續(xù)研究顯示，在24個(gè)改造的社區(qū)中，種植活動(dòng)都非常受歡迎。通過植物種植，社區(qū)中不同年齡段的人們被聯(lián)系起來，共同為改變社區(qū)環(huán)境做出努力。此外，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)也通過與社區(qū)周圍的學(xué)校合作來培訓(xùn)專職園丁，以便讓學(xué)校在社區(qū)綠地的后續(xù)維護(hù)中接管大部分工作。

圖2 種植活動(dòng)中可以讓兒童帶回家種植的吊籃Hanging baskets to take home

2.2.3 社區(qū)創(chuàng)意活動(dòng)

依據(jù)社區(qū)的特征來開展創(chuàng)意藝術(shù)活動(dòng)，包括：通過環(huán)境藝術(shù)、設(shè)施、壁畫、標(biāo)志設(shè)計(jì)和裝飾品等元素的置入，臨時(shí)或永久地改變場(chǎng)地面貌（圖3）；制作圣誕節(jié)提燈并在圣誕游行中進(jìn)行展示；組織兒童進(jìn)行石頭彩繪、觀察鳥類遷徙、設(shè)置鳥箱、用樹葉制作自然信件、用落葉制作皇冠等活動(dòng)，鼓勵(lì)兒童使用自然材料進(jìn)行手工制作。這些活動(dòng)幾乎都使用了在活動(dòng)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)收集的或者是從其他地方帶來的天然材料。這些社區(qū)創(chuàng)意活動(dòng)吸引了社區(qū)中不同年齡段人群的廣泛參與。

圖3 壁畫活動(dòng)中青少年在墻面上繪畫Teenagers painting a mural

此外，作為項(xiàng)目的延伸，團(tuán)隊(duì)同樣也在部分小學(xué)和早教機(jī)構(gòu)中合作開展了一些創(chuàng)意活動(dòng)。這些創(chuàng)意活動(dòng)不僅吸引了更多兒童參與，還吸引了一些藝術(shù)家參與其中。例如，謝菲爾德市的一個(gè)城市藝術(shù)團(tuán)體參與并一同組織了名為“我的生活”的活動(dòng)。這個(gè)藝術(shù)團(tuán)體日常工作內(nèi)容主要是幫助兒童和青少年發(fā)展他們感興趣的專業(yè)藝術(shù)技能，例如噴涂藝術(shù)、T恤印花和壁畫設(shè)計(jì)等。通過與該深受年輕人喜愛的藝術(shù)團(tuán)體合作，研究小組得以在社區(qū)以非正式訪談的方式與年輕人探討他們對(duì)于社區(qū)綠地的使用現(xiàn)狀和需求。

不僅如此，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)還對(duì)一所中學(xué)的青少年進(jìn)行了采訪，關(guān)于他們?nèi)绾慰创麄兯畹纳鐓^(qū)的戶外場(chǎng)所；并且邀請(qǐng)青少年以照片的形式記錄社區(qū)戶外場(chǎng)地中的宏觀或微觀場(chǎng)景。這些青少年拍攝的照片在社區(qū)中進(jìn)行了展覽；團(tuán)隊(duì)人員與拍攝照片的青少年探討了以下問題：1）照片中展示了什么有趣的地方？2）這個(gè)地方為什么有趣？3）你和同齡人會(huì)如何利用照片中所展示的場(chǎng)地？4）你對(duì)于社區(qū)公共空間的使用有怎樣的想法？5）這些想法能在哪個(gè)具體的社區(qū)空間得以實(shí)現(xiàn)？通過以上問題的探討，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)了解到很多不曾為人所知的青少年關(guān)于社區(qū)場(chǎng)地使用的想法。

同樣，通過利用天然和非天然材料，項(xiàng)目以藝術(shù)干預(yù)（例如設(shè)置臨時(shí)藝術(shù)裝置）的方式改變了社區(qū)中居民熟悉的場(chǎng)地，有時(shí)甚至將居民的活動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樯鐓^(qū)藝術(shù)的一部分。例如在一個(gè)社區(qū)，兒童利用自己設(shè)計(jì)的服裝和藝術(shù)品將自己裝扮成“活動(dòng)的雕塑”，并在社區(qū)內(nèi)舉辦了“雕塑游行”。在這次活動(dòng)中，雖然臨時(shí)的雕塑游行道路僅僅存在了短短幾個(gè)小時(shí)，但留下的照片甚至是回憶，足以讓孩子們意識(shí)到他們的力量也可以讓社區(qū)空間發(fā)生巨大改變，他們也可以對(duì)外界環(huán)境產(chǎn)生重要影響。

2.2.4 趣味運(yùn)動(dòng)會(huì)

社區(qū)中的趣味運(yùn)動(dòng)會(huì)包括小木屋建造、定向運(yùn)動(dòng)、雕塑步道、復(fù)活節(jié)彩蛋狩獵、地圖測(cè)繪和步道建造等。這些多樣的活動(dòng)都有較為靈活的組織形式，甚至在一次社區(qū)活動(dòng)中，有一個(gè)小朋友創(chuàng)造性地采用了一種不同尋常的玩法，她帶領(lǐng)大家用場(chǎng)地中的“廢棄物”搭建了一條道路，這條道路可以讓大家從一個(gè)游戲器械轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個(gè)游戲器械而不觸碰地面，她還給這個(gè)游戲方式起名為“從這到那”。受到這個(gè)小朋友的啟發(fā)，團(tuán)隊(duì)在其他社區(qū)的游戲場(chǎng)地也采用了這種游戲方式，這種使用簡(jiǎn)單材料的創(chuàng)意玩法同樣受到其他社區(qū)孩子的喜歡。在發(fā)現(xiàn)這種不拘一格的充滿創(chuàng)意的場(chǎng)地使用的方式會(huì)受到孩子們的歡迎以后，團(tuán)隊(duì)邀請(qǐng)了專業(yè)跑酷團(tuán)體參與社區(qū)活動(dòng)，他們帶領(lǐng)孩子們發(fā)現(xiàn)社區(qū)戶外場(chǎng)地不同尋常的使用方法。隨著專業(yè)跑酷團(tuán)體的加入，戶外場(chǎng)地中的現(xiàn)有游戲設(shè)施、獨(dú)特地形和其他自然要素都發(fā)展出了更加有趣的新玩法。隨后，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)觀察了孩子們使用場(chǎng)地的方式，并以此為基礎(chǔ)提出了設(shè)計(jì)策略，以擴(kuò)展游戲場(chǎng)地的使用方式，讓游戲場(chǎng)地更具挑戰(zhàn)性和吸引力。

2.2.5 寵物狗展覽

在項(xiàng)目開展的社區(qū)之一，戶外公共場(chǎng)地大多為遛狗人群使用，因此團(tuán)隊(duì)在該社區(qū)發(fā)起了一次寵物狗展覽作為獨(dú)特的社區(qū)活動(dòng)（圖4）。寵物狗展覽的目的是用友好的方式讓社區(qū)中遛狗的居民了解場(chǎng)地將要發(fā)生的改造，以及知道即使社區(qū)戶外場(chǎng)地將進(jìn)行兒童友好的改造，他們?nèi)匀豢梢允褂酶脑旌蟮膱?chǎng)地。寵物狗展覽為場(chǎng)地的不同使用人群創(chuàng)造了交流機(jī)會(huì)，對(duì)促進(jìn)社區(qū)公共空間的共享使用產(chǎn)生了積極促進(jìn)作用。使公共空間的主要使用人群感受到重視和參與，并順利開展了社區(qū)公共空間的兒童友好環(huán)境營(yíng)造。

圖4 研究人員在寵物狗展覽現(xiàn)場(chǎng)The housing officer at the dog show

2.2.6 “運(yùn)動(dòng)日”活動(dòng)

“運(yùn)動(dòng)日”活動(dòng)是在位于兩所小學(xué)之間的一個(gè)社區(qū)開展的。由于需要與2個(gè)小學(xué)同時(shí)進(jìn)行溝通，該社區(qū)活動(dòng)相比其他的社區(qū)活動(dòng)花費(fèi)了更多時(shí)間。“運(yùn)動(dòng)日”活動(dòng)舉辦的最初目的是想要增進(jìn)社區(qū)與當(dāng)?shù)匦W(xué)的互動(dòng)，將社區(qū)中的閑置空地加以改造，讓其以嶄新的面貌重新受到兒童的歡迎。謝菲爾德市市長(zhǎng)出席了該社區(qū)舉辦的第一個(gè)“運(yùn)動(dòng)日”活動(dòng)，并且在活動(dòng)上頒發(fā)了復(fù)活節(jié)彩蛋搜尋活動(dòng)的獲勝獎(jiǎng)品。自此以后，“運(yùn)動(dòng)日”已持續(xù)舉辦了8年。在第8年，共有來自兩所學(xué)校的140多名小學(xué)兒童與15名學(xué)齡前兒童參加。在“運(yùn)動(dòng)日”舉辦的時(shí)候，學(xué)校的老師、活動(dòng)組織人員、兒童的父母、爺爺奶奶、兒童的兄弟姐妹、鄰居以及社區(qū)里其他圍觀者都會(huì)趕來為孩子們的比賽歡呼喝彩。在這8年中，孩子們見證了荒廢的社區(qū)綠地?zé)òl(fā)新的生機(jī)，成為深受兒童喜愛的地方，最初參與“活動(dòng)日”的孩子現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)長(zhǎng)大了，他們的弟弟和妹妹在他們的帶領(lǐng)下延續(xù)了對(duì)活動(dòng)場(chǎng)地的使用，這些積極的使用方式甚至已經(jīng)成為不同年齡孩子們之間傳遞的“游戲傳統(tǒng)”。

2.2.7 “記憶中的街巷”活動(dòng)

一些社區(qū)有較高比例的老年人口。老年人在一些情況下會(huì)認(rèn)為吵鬧的兒童戶外游戲會(huì)影響到他們安靜的生活。為消除這樣的誤解并促進(jìn)老幼人群的交流，團(tuán)隊(duì)設(shè)計(jì)了一項(xiàng)名為“記憶中的街巷”的活動(dòng)。這項(xiàng)活動(dòng)通常在輕松愉快的下午茶氛圍里進(jìn)行。社區(qū)中居住的老年人會(huì)帶來自己以前的照片一起回憶童年時(shí)社區(qū)的樣子和童年經(jīng)常做的游戲?！坝洃浿械慕窒铩币还苍?個(gè)老齡化程度高的社區(qū)中開展，受到了老年人的普遍歡迎。在其中的一個(gè)社區(qū)，這項(xiàng)活動(dòng)被保留下來并成為社區(qū)年度事件。謝菲爾德市市長(zhǎng)也曾參與了“記憶中的街巷”活動(dòng)，與老人共進(jìn)下午茶，并帶來了自己童年的照片；在活動(dòng)中，一位八旬老人甚至帶來了一些老唱片和周邊地區(qū)的老照片和風(fēng)景畫。這些老唱片、老照片和風(fēng)景畫最后被拍賣，所得收益用于繼續(xù)推進(jìn)社區(qū)活動(dòng)?，F(xiàn)在，這些改造的兒童游戲場(chǎng)地，不僅是兒童喜愛的戶外活動(dòng)空間，同樣也受到了老年人的歡迎。在老年人看來，這些場(chǎng)所不僅是帶孫輩兒童進(jìn)行游戲的地方，而且是老年人的戶外社交場(chǎng)地，老人在這里可以結(jié)識(shí)鄰居、認(rèn)識(shí)新朋友。

2.3 社區(qū)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地設(shè)施更新

在“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目開展的社區(qū)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地通常設(shè)置在住宅間綠地中。這些兒童游戲場(chǎng)地質(zhì)量普遍較差，僅由草地、灌木叢和穿過綠地的小徑等簡(jiǎn)單的景觀元素構(gòu)成；并且兒童游戲設(shè)施大多已經(jīng)損壞。在每個(gè)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地改造項(xiàng)目的最初階段，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)都對(duì)用戶對(duì)于場(chǎng)地的使用行為進(jìn)行了細(xì)致的觀察。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)不僅幾乎沒有居民會(huì)在這些游戲場(chǎng)地進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)時(shí)間停留，更沒有兒童使用這些游戲場(chǎng)地，只偶爾有居民在這些場(chǎng)地散步或遛狗。

2.3.1 宅間兒童游戲場(chǎng)地

造成游戲場(chǎng)地因質(zhì)量下降而閑置的主要原因是缺乏資金用于場(chǎng)地的持續(xù)管理和維護(hù)。改造前，秋千的座位已經(jīng)損壞，只剩下框架；場(chǎng)地中央?yún)^(qū)域的交通島也已不在，只在地面留下一個(gè)圓形的痕跡；也可以看到場(chǎng)地仍然保留著陳舊的攀爬架，然而攀爬架下面已經(jīng)沒有任何形式的安全鋪裝（圖5）。在改造中，團(tuán)隊(duì)在場(chǎng)地中置入了一個(gè)用石籠圍成的種植池。社區(qū)中的老年人參與了種植池的播種工作，他們多年來一直負(fù)責(zé)植物的修剪維護(hù)工作，直到因年老等不能再繼續(xù)。由于該社區(qū)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地占地面積較大，設(shè)計(jì)師移除了大面積柏油碎石鋪裝的硬質(zhì)區(qū)域，栽植樹木，引入混植草坪，極大地提升了場(chǎng)地的生物多樣性；同時(shí)也配置了新的游戲設(shè)備，采用靈活的布置形式為整個(gè)游戲場(chǎng)地提供了更加豐富的游戲機(jī)會(huì)，提高了整個(gè)場(chǎng)地的可游玩性（圖6）。

圖5 改造前的宅間兒童游戲場(chǎng)地Community playground before renewal

圖6 改造后的宅間兒童游戲場(chǎng)地Community playground after renewal

2.3.2 通學(xué)路旁兒童游戲場(chǎng)地

第二個(gè)進(jìn)行改造提升的場(chǎng)地在一條通往學(xué)校的小路旁（圖7），許多學(xué)齡兒童在每天上下學(xué)途中會(huì)經(jīng)過這個(gè)空間。在改造之前，這個(gè)場(chǎng)地只有一個(gè)沒有了座位的秋千架，并且時(shí)常有社會(huì)不良青年在此聚集，這些情況導(dǎo)致了場(chǎng)地的失序感，讓人感覺場(chǎng)地不安全，以至于不愿意在該場(chǎng)地停留。對(duì)該場(chǎng)地改造的第一步就是移除舊的秋千架，并將秋千架下的鋪裝場(chǎng)地改造成了草坪；在此期間，團(tuán)隊(duì)與當(dāng)?shù)氐膶W(xué)校也進(jìn)行了深入討論，以便更有針對(duì)性地對(duì)游戲場(chǎng)地進(jìn)行改造。實(shí)際上，與學(xué)校進(jìn)行交流是一個(gè)比較漫長(zhǎng)的過程，因?yàn)樵搶W(xué)校坐落在城市較為貧困的地區(qū)，學(xué)校的主要目標(biāo)在于提高教學(xué)質(zhì)量，并沒有太多精力與項(xiàng)目團(tuán)隊(duì)進(jìn)行兒童通學(xué)路上游戲場(chǎng)地改造的探討。當(dāng)經(jīng)歷過較長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間的反復(fù)交流溝通以后，校方最終希望在上學(xué)的路上為兒童提供可進(jìn)行短暫停留和安全游戲的小型游戲場(chǎng)地。于是，經(jīng)過改造后的小型游戲場(chǎng)地配置有一個(gè)滑梯以及其他小型游戲設(shè)施（圖8），以便為兒童提供他們喜愛的并且有趣的游戲機(jī)會(huì)。改造以后的游戲場(chǎng)有時(shí)也是兒童舉辦戶外生日聚會(huì)的場(chǎng)地。

圖7 改造前的通學(xué)路旁兒童游戲場(chǎng)地Routes to schools before renewal

圖8 改造后的通學(xué)路旁兒童游戲場(chǎng)地Routes to schools after renewal

2.3.3 社區(qū)公共綠地兒童游戲場(chǎng)地

第三個(gè)改造的兒童游戲場(chǎng)地是一個(gè)位于社區(qū)公共綠地道路交叉口邊的三角形場(chǎng)地，其兩側(cè)都有房屋，另一側(cè)有林地。在設(shè)計(jì)團(tuán)隊(duì)眼中，這里是一個(gè)舉辦創(chuàng)意活動(dòng)的絕佳場(chǎng)所。為充分發(fā)揮場(chǎng)所特質(zhì)，整個(gè)場(chǎng)地在改造前后發(fā)生了很大的變化（圖9、10）。在對(duì)該場(chǎng)地進(jìn)行調(diào)研時(shí)，團(tuán)隊(duì)設(shè)計(jì)師發(fā)現(xiàn)冬天下雪的時(shí)候，孩子們經(jīng)常在場(chǎng)地中的草坡滑雪橇。因此，為給孩子們提供寬敞的雪橇活動(dòng)場(chǎng)地，場(chǎng)地中現(xiàn)存的游戲設(shè)施都被移除，只剩下草坪中可降解的地坪以及圍合秋千區(qū)域的柵欄。完成了這一階段的改造后，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)在該場(chǎng)地成功組織了多次社區(qū)參與型活動(dòng)，這些活動(dòng)吸引了居民的廣泛參與；在觀察了人們對(duì)于場(chǎng)地的使用行為以后，設(shè)計(jì)師決定在草坡上增設(shè)滑梯，與社區(qū)居民進(jìn)行深入交流后最終確定了滑梯的具體位置。設(shè)計(jì)師認(rèn)為還需要在場(chǎng)地中增設(shè)沙池，然而管理人員認(rèn)為在該場(chǎng)地放置沙池會(huì)帶來諸多管理問題，因此拒絕了該改造計(jì)劃。在經(jīng)過了與場(chǎng)地管理人員的漫長(zhǎng)拉鋸談判后，最終增設(shè)了沙池。此外，在改造設(shè)計(jì)中秋千并沒有采用呈直線布置的慣用形式，而是彼此成角度放置，這樣可以為玩秋千的人提供更多交流的機(jī)會(huì)（圖10）。場(chǎng)地原來的柵欄得以保留，重新粉刷以后在欄板上切出一個(gè)個(gè)圓形孔洞，讓兒童可以透過孔洞張望，為兒童提供了更多玩耍的機(jī)會(huì)。

圖9 改造前的社區(qū)公共綠地兒童游戲場(chǎng)地Public-spaces in communities before renewal

圖10 改造后的社區(qū)公共綠地兒童游戲場(chǎng)地Public-spaces in communities after renewal

這3個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)改造項(xiàng)目是眾多改造項(xiàng)目中比較有代表性的案例，也是團(tuán)隊(duì)在項(xiàng)目結(jié)題報(bào)告中著重展示的案例。這3個(gè)項(xiàng)目都闡釋了如何用最少的經(jīng)費(fèi)支出，通過挖掘場(chǎng)地的特色為場(chǎng)地帶來最大的改變，為兒童提供最豐富的游戲機(jī)會(huì)。在項(xiàng)目結(jié)題以后，這些游戲場(chǎng)地改造項(xiàng)目仍然在為社區(qū)持續(xù)帶來深遠(yuǎn)影響，而這是研究團(tuán)隊(duì)沒有預(yù)料到的。

3“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目反思與經(jīng)驗(yàn)

3.1 可行性研究是確保項(xiàng)目順利進(jìn)行的關(guān)鍵前提

社區(qū)參與型活動(dòng)是營(yíng)造社區(qū)氛圍、促進(jìn)社區(qū)居民交流的最有效手段。社區(qū)活動(dòng)成功的關(guān)鍵在于組織團(tuán)隊(duì)需要細(xì)致考慮活動(dòng)全程所有步驟的可行性，以便能夠?qū)撛诎踩[患和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)進(jìn)行預(yù)判并提出有效應(yīng)對(duì)措施。以英格蘭為例，所有在公共空間舉辦的參與型活動(dòng)都需要進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格的健康安全風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估需要考慮的事項(xiàng)包括：需要使用的工具和設(shè)備，活動(dòng)過程潛在的安全風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，參與活動(dòng)可能會(huì)帶來的意外傷害（出行安全、滑倒等）以及食品衛(wèi)生安全等?！芭c自然共生”項(xiàng)目中開展的所有社區(qū)參與項(xiàng)目也都嚴(yán)格遵守謝菲爾德和羅瑟漢姆野生動(dòng)物基金會(huì)制定的兒童和弱勢(shì)群體保護(hù)策略。此外，根據(jù)活動(dòng)內(nèi)容的不同，超過一定人數(shù)或者有現(xiàn)場(chǎng)表演的社區(qū)活動(dòng)需要通過謝菲爾德市議會(huì)的特別許可才可以開展。由于有兒童和老人等社會(huì)弱勢(shì)群體的參與，前期進(jìn)行充分的可行性研究和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管控預(yù)案是社區(qū)參與型活動(dòng)得以成功開展的關(guān)鍵。

3.2 用開放的心態(tài)積極面對(duì)挑戰(zhàn)

“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目開展期間，面對(duì)多元文化及不同社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)背景的當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)遇到了諸多挑戰(zhàn)，應(yīng)對(duì)不同挑戰(zhàn)的不同策略直接決定了社區(qū)活動(dòng)的開展方式。例如，對(duì)于有不同宗教文化背景的居民居住的社區(qū)，充分了解社區(qū)的多元文化，記住不同文化的傳統(tǒng)節(jié)日（如開齋節(jié)）和習(xí)俗對(duì)于在這些社區(qū)開展參與型社區(qū)活動(dòng)至關(guān)重要。在為期3年的項(xiàng)目中，研究人員與多種文化背景的社區(qū)居民建立了深厚友好的合作關(guān)系，他們都對(duì)社區(qū)中公共空間所發(fā)生的積極改變感到高興。因此，該項(xiàng)目的最終目的并非迅速提升社區(qū)公共空間質(zhì)量，而是通過社區(qū)參與活動(dòng)幫助社區(qū)居民展開對(duì)理想社區(qū)環(huán)境的想象，并且開放地討論不同社區(qū)改造方案的可行性，在居民充分參與的情況下實(shí)現(xiàn)包容性社區(qū)的建設(shè)和社區(qū)友好和諧氛圍的營(yíng)造。

3.3 建立與社區(qū)的信任合作關(guān)系

“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目團(tuán)隊(duì)提供了一種成功在社區(qū)組織活動(dòng)和對(duì)社區(qū)公共空間進(jìn)行改造的模式，而這一切的基礎(chǔ)是與社區(qū)建立互相信任的合作關(guān)系。雖然在項(xiàng)目最開始的階段，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)并沒有真正意識(shí)到與社區(qū)建立信任關(guān)系的重要性，但是隨著項(xiàng)目的發(fā)展，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)越來越意識(shí)到社區(qū)的支持對(duì)于項(xiàng)目的成功至關(guān)重要。同時(shí)，團(tuán)隊(duì)也發(fā)現(xiàn)可以通過第三方團(tuán)體，例如項(xiàng)目中提到的城市藝術(shù)團(tuán)體和跑酷團(tuán)體等，或者是在社區(qū)中具有一定威信力的人員來建立與社區(qū)居民之間的信任關(guān)系；或者與社區(qū)管理團(tuán)隊(duì)之間建立相互支持的友好關(guān)系，也有助于推進(jìn)改造項(xiàng)目在社區(qū)中的順利實(shí)施。

4“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目效益

“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目并未隨結(jié)題而消逝，從項(xiàng)目開始執(zhí)行至今，與自然共生的理念一直持續(xù)影響著社區(qū)的物質(zhì)環(huán)境和社會(huì)環(huán)境。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目讓居民重新審視并使用社區(qū)中的綠色場(chǎng)地，同時(shí)也提高了居民對(duì)社區(qū)環(huán)境和服務(wù)能力的滿意程度。

4.1 游戲場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值顯著提升

在經(jīng)過改造的社區(qū)中，游戲場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值都得到了顯著提高。關(guān)于游戲場(chǎng)地改造前后游戲價(jià)值的評(píng)估采用了Woolley ＆ Lowe評(píng)價(jià)工具[5]。前后對(duì)比顯示，所有改造后的社區(qū)游戲場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值都有明顯提升。以這些成功改造的案例為參考，2014年項(xiàng)目結(jié)束以后，又有另外3個(gè)游戲場(chǎng)地也自發(fā)進(jìn)行了改造以提升場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值。

4.2 游戲場(chǎng)地改造產(chǎn)生積極社會(huì)效益

項(xiàng)目產(chǎn)生的社會(huì)效益在于為社區(qū)中不同年齡、不同文化背景、不同生活方式的居民提供了友好交流的機(jī)會(huì)，讓大家增進(jìn)了解，促進(jìn)社區(qū)形成友好包容的氛圍。在項(xiàng)目結(jié)束以后，一些社區(qū)依然在定期舉辦深受居民歡迎的活動(dòng)。這是研究團(tuán)隊(duì)在項(xiàng)目計(jì)劃中未曾預(yù)料到的。在項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行期間，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)在3個(gè)社區(qū)中嘗試性地組建了以管理社區(qū)公共空間和提升社區(qū)的公共空間質(zhì)量為工作內(nèi)容的“友好小組”。這些“友好小組”讓“人們聚在一起形成一個(gè)集體，可以共同影響社區(qū)發(fā)生積極變化”的信念和工作方式逐步深入人心。在“友好小組”的積極引導(dǎo)下社區(qū)居民學(xué)會(huì)建立共同目標(biāo)工作團(tuán)體，組織社區(qū)活動(dòng)，以及與其他團(tuán)體和組織合作完成工作。不僅如此，不同社區(qū)間也進(jìn)行了合作與交流，通過一個(gè)社區(qū)幫助另一個(gè)社區(qū)開展活動(dòng)，這些跨社區(qū)的交流實(shí)現(xiàn)了知識(shí)和經(jīng)驗(yàn)的共享，讓項(xiàng)目的社會(huì)效益實(shí)現(xiàn)了最大化。

如今，寵物狗展覽、“運(yùn)動(dòng)日”“記憶中的街巷”等活動(dòng)在一個(gè)示范社區(qū)中已連續(xù)舉辦了8年，社區(qū)的“友好小組”也依舊在努力工作，繼續(xù)尋找方法讓社區(qū)游戲場(chǎng)地的服務(wù)功能得到充分發(fā)揮，讓社區(qū)居民可以更好地使用游戲場(chǎng)地。最初的發(fā)起團(tuán)隊(duì)很高興看到社區(qū)活動(dòng)現(xiàn)在仍然在延續(xù)，受到居民的支持和喜愛，尤其是受到兒童的熱烈歡迎。現(xiàn)如今，這些活動(dòng)甚至成為社區(qū)生活的一件盛事，讓改造后的場(chǎng)地保持長(zhǎng)久的活力，形成了社區(qū)的特色，甚至為社區(qū)場(chǎng)地的持續(xù)維護(hù)爭(zhēng)取到更多贊助資金。社區(qū)中四季變化的綠色空間、具有創(chuàng)意的游戲干預(yù)、豐富的社區(qū)活動(dòng)、持續(xù)的資金投入以及其他基礎(chǔ)社區(qū)的改善提升是“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目的延續(xù)。項(xiàng)目為社區(qū)帶來的多元效益遠(yuǎn)超當(dāng)初的設(shè)想，并將可持續(xù)發(fā)展下去。

5“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目經(jīng)驗(yàn)

英國《兒童發(fā)展計(jì)劃》政策背景下實(shí)施的“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目對(duì)于中國“十四五”規(guī)劃背景下兒童友好城市建設(shè)的借鑒意義，主要可以歸納總結(jié)為：1）在社會(huì)政策方面，該項(xiàng)目發(fā)動(dòng)全社會(huì)力量共同致力兒童發(fā)展，并且積極推動(dòng)兒童參與并融入城市社會(huì)生活；2）在城市空間品質(zhì)提升方面，該項(xiàng)目推進(jìn)了社區(qū)空間的兒童友好改造，為兒童提供了更加豐富的游戲機(jī)會(huì)。該項(xiàng)目以社區(qū)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的自然化改造為切入方式，成功實(shí)現(xiàn)了社區(qū)的兒童友好環(huán)境創(chuàng)建。

5.1 多元參與共同推進(jìn)兒童友好環(huán)境建設(shè)

筆者詳細(xì)介紹了在英國體制背景下政府總體規(guī)劃政策在地方層面實(shí)施的全過程。在此過程中，以科研團(tuán)隊(duì)為核心的項(xiàng)目團(tuán)隊(duì)，通過整合政府部門、當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)、高等院校、社會(huì)組織、基金會(huì)等多個(gè)組織機(jī)構(gòu)，運(yùn)用專業(yè)特長(zhǎng)，通過開展前期策劃、項(xiàng)目設(shè)計(jì)以及項(xiàng)目后期評(píng)估，實(shí)現(xiàn)了兒童游戲場(chǎng)地的全流程設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐，充分發(fā)揮了科研理論對(duì)于設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐的指導(dǎo)作用，推動(dòng)實(shí)踐項(xiàng)目在社區(qū)層面的順利開展、運(yùn)作甚至取得超出項(xiàng)目預(yù)期的成果。該項(xiàng)目對(duì)于我國兒童友好型城市建設(shè)中提出的“多元參與，凝聚合力”基本原則的實(shí)踐具有借鑒意義，在一定程度上可以幫助中國的兒童友好城市工作人員開闊視野，積極思考多領(lǐng)域、多部門協(xié)同工作，發(fā)動(dòng)全社會(huì)力量共同為兒童創(chuàng)造適宜其成長(zhǎng)的城市環(huán)境。

5.2 鼓勵(lì)兒童全方位參與社區(qū)社會(huì)生活

此外，研究通過對(duì)社區(qū)活動(dòng)組織方式和兒童游戲場(chǎng)地改造方案的介紹，豐富了社區(qū)參與型活動(dòng)的組織方式，為組織有趣多樣的社區(qū)活動(dòng)提供參考；通過8年的持續(xù)觀察，詮釋了兒童參與社區(qū)活動(dòng)的意義在于營(yíng)造充分滿足兒童需求的兒童游戲場(chǎng)地，并在游戲場(chǎng)地形成可以傳承的獨(dú)特游戲方式，創(chuàng)造真正屬于兒童的社區(qū)空間；同時(shí)，該項(xiàng)目也充分展現(xiàn)了非政府機(jī)構(gòu)或組織在營(yíng)造兒童友好型社區(qū)時(shí)發(fā)揮的積極作用，為自下而上型的兒童友好型社區(qū)創(chuàng)建提供了借鑒經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

5.3 社區(qū)公共空間的兒童友好型改造方式

社區(qū)作為兒童日常生活圈中最主要組成部分，其兒童友好程度對(duì)兒童的成長(zhǎng)體驗(yàn)有重要的影響作用。提升社區(qū)空間品質(zhì)和社區(qū)服務(wù)效能是推進(jìn)兒童成長(zhǎng)空間友好程度的有效手段。“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目通過將傳統(tǒng)“KFC”游戲場(chǎng)地進(jìn)行自然化改造，充分開發(fā)了游戲場(chǎng)地的游戲價(jià)值，實(shí)現(xiàn)了社區(qū)公共空間對(duì)于不同年齡段兒童游戲需求的服務(wù)效能提升。因此，自然化的兒童游戲場(chǎng)地設(shè)計(jì)方式可為中國城市社區(qū)兒童游戲場(chǎng)地空間品質(zhì)提升方案提供思路。

綜上，英國英格蘭地區(qū)實(shí)施的“與自然共生”項(xiàng)目，其成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)在多元協(xié)同工作機(jī)制、兒童參與方式以及社區(qū)空間改造等方面為我國兒童友好城市的建設(shè)提供了參考。綜合考慮我國的城市經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)發(fā)展情況，該項(xiàng)目為因地制宜地創(chuàng)建中國兒童友好城市面臨的機(jī)遇與挑戰(zhàn)，提供了國際前沿的實(shí)踐策略和經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

圖片來源(Sources of Figures)：

文中圖片均由作者拍攝。

（編輯/王亞鶯）

“Living with Nature”: Improving Urban Green Spaces for Children’s Play

(GBR) Woolley Helen, (GBR) Somerset-Ward Alison, (GBR) Bradshaw Kate, TANG Pai

1 Background

1.1 Changing Policy on Children’s Outdoor Environments in England

The child’s right to play is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child[1]and expressed in differing ways in the countries which are signatories to the convention.In England the best expression of this was possibly the period of three years from 2008 to 2010 when the Labour government of the time introduced a Children’s Plan[2]and Play Strategy[3]. The latter set out a direction for the country for the refurbishment of existing and provision of new outdoor play spaces within local authority areas across the country. A total of 3,500 playgrounds would be improved or built and the policy was supported by ￡235 million to be spent by the local authorities in this programme. For the previous 50 or so years playground in England, and many other parts of the world, had become increasingly similar in what they provided for children and how they looked. This Kit, Fence, Carpet approach[4]did not take into account the breadth of play opportunities such spaces could support if they were well designed nor did they use specific landscape elements, such as landform, vegetation, sand, water and loose parts. One aim of the government’s programme was to move the provision of outdoor playgrounds away from this approach to be more natural in style providing increased contact with nature and improved play value[5].

To help local authorities with this programme of playground improvement two documents were commissioned and published by the government for England. Design for Play[6]suggested 10 principles for designing successful play spaces and provided many inspiring illustrations and case studies. Accompanying this was Managing Risk in Play Provision[7]which explained the concepts and understandings of safety, risk, hazard and harm, together with the legal and policy context with respect to outdoor play. This document went on to introduce the concept and practice of a Risk Benefit Analysis[7]in order to support the introduction of more challenge in outdoor playgrounds than a traditional Risk Analysis might allow for. This document was a great achievement,partly because of the different partners who were involved in its development and who signed up agreeing to it. These two documents provided a policy and practice framework for local authorities to work for the funding programme.

In 2010 the UK General Election returned a Conservative-Liberal Democrat government and the former party, wanting to save money,immediately cancelled the remainder of the funding programme for the outdoor playgrounds.Most of the playgrounds had been built or were in a contract that could not easily be cancelled, and so were saved. All of the previously mentioned policy,practice and guidance documents were no longer considered appropriate and were placed in the government archive.

Once these documents were no longer deemed relevant by the government and the funding programme for outdoor playgrounds was not extended the only way forward to continue to improve outdoor playgrounds was by the enthusiasm and commitment of others who understood the importance of good quality outdoor play spaces for children. If this were to happen there was also a need for smaller amounts of funding from non-governmental bodies.

1.2 Working with Communities

Working with communities has been a requirement for some planning and practice projects in England since the 1970s. The Town and Country Planning Act (1970) required planners to engage with communities but did not define who the community was or how they should be engaged. Over the years a series of funding programmes by the government and the National Lottery (introduced in 1995) required applicants to engage with communities and this was shown by the applicant ticking a box. The lack of explanation as to how communities should or could be involved in projects resulted in methods such as public meetings or exhibitions being frequently used.Such methods are considered to be “tokenistic”nonparticipation on Arnstein’s[8]Ladder of Citizen participation.

At the beginning of the 21st century this began to change with projects funded by the Big Lottery who wanted to know that the projects their money was funding were not only benefitting communities but involving them during the project. The Playbuilder funding associated with the Children’s Plan was another programme expecting communities to be involved in how money was spent but some criticised the fact that the timescale did not allow enough time for meaningful working with the communities. Once the funding programme finished the only way to continue any improvement in urban play areas was through individual projects. Allowing children to be involved in decisions affecting their lives —children’s participation — is also an article of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Much has been written about children’s participation, but less has been explained about what changes such participation has resulted in.

This paper goes on to explain some aspects of one project beyond the national programme of funding for outdoor playgrounds. Living with Nature, took place in the northern city of Sheffield with funding between 2011 and 2014. The paper will discuss the background to the project, some of the process of working with the communities,examples of the product or outcome of the project, specifically improved play areas, and aspects of the legacy of the project.

2 “Living with Nature”: Project Content

2.1 Introducing Living with Nature

Living with Nature was a three year programme(2011–2014) funding by the Big Lottery Reaching Communities programme. It developed from the enthusiasm of a housing officer in the City of Sheffield who wanted to improve the outdoor play spaces in the green spaces associated with the social housing managed by Sheffield City Council.These provide homes for about 20% of the city’s population for people who are usually on lower incomes. The budget for the maintenance of the outdoor play spaces had reduced over a period of years and in this resulted in many playgrounds having pieces of equipment removed and the spaces falling into disuse and deteriorating in quality.

In 2006 the housing officer heard the author speak about how playgrounds could be better than the Kit, Fence, Carpet approach by being designed to include natural elements. She immediately contacted the author to ask for help but at that time there were no resources with which to help.The author never forgot that phone call and 18 months later I was able to invite the housing office to a discussion about play and housing. Following this two things happened. First of all for several years they worked on some of the housing sites as second year undergraduate projects. These gave students opportunities to spend time with some of the residents in the housing areas and resulted in the students producing plans for the playground which provided some inspirations for the communities. Second, two of us who were CABE Space Enablers worked with the housing officer to develop a play strategy for the playground across the city for which the City Council Housing Services was responsible.

In 2010 the first author obtained a small amount of funding from their university for a“Knowledge Exchange” project which enabled one of our graduates (second author) to work with the housing officer (third author) to start to work one of the priority sites identified in the play strategy which later became known as the “pilot site”. As time went on the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust became involved and led the writing of the funding proposal to the big Lottery Reaching Communities Fund. This was successful and the project started in July 2011. Most of the money was for staff and for the process of working with 24 communities associated with the green spaces that had playgrounds and had been identified as the priority spaces for improvement in the Play Strategy.

The funding paid for a Landscape Architect and a community engagement officer specifically for this project, some additional time for the housing officer and time for the project manager and for the first author speak as the advisor and chair of the steering group. The steering group included all these partners: Sheffield Housing Services, Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust and The University of Sheffield. Additional staff from other parts of Sheffield City Council, two from housing and one from parks and countryside,also attended some of the steering group meetings.A part of the funding was for the product of changing the physical state of 8 sites identified as priority in the Play Strategy, and to this was added contributions from one project the wildlife trust was involved in and a wide range of smaller amounts of money which communities applied for,with the support of the project team.

As is often the case the funding body for the project required targets as part of the evidence that the money had been spent on the project. All of the numerical targets for numbers of events and organisations to be involved were exceeded.Organisations involved in the project included Tenants and Residents Associations (TARAs),Friends Groups (of a specific green space),Community Centres, sheltered housing and old people’s residential homes, residential homes for disabled people, a hostel for homeless people, a local community wildlife trust, the local police,churches, libraries, another social housing provider,local urban artists and the Sheffield Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA). The organisations specifically involving children include nurseries (children aged 0-5), primary schools(children aged 6-10), and secondary schools(children aged 11-18), after school and holiday clubs, youth groups, the Sheffield Parkour Group,a mobile children’s library and a local children’s hospice.

2.2 “Living with Nature”: The Process

Twenty four sites were identified from the Play Strategy as being the priority for improving the playgrounds and therefore for working with the associated communities. One aim of working with the 24 communities was to understand how they might want to use the spaces when they were redesigned. Understanding how a space might be used by children and other members of the community was one way of informing the re-design of the play spaces and was particularly important for details such as where pieces of fixed play equipment, such as slides, might be placed on a site.This was done by informally observing children’s and adult’s activities on the sites during a range of activities facilitated by the project team. In addition these events were used as mechanisms for talking with members of the community about the green and play spaces. This dialogue was made possible because of the presence of the housing officer who was known by many of the residents in the different areas. Informal observation of children and adult behaviour together with discussions at the onsite events satisfied the project team’s desire to work in the middle to upper range of Arnstein’s ladder of participation.

The project team developed a palette of activities, from which they drew on for each of the sites, to work with the communities. Additional or different activities were introduced if these were more appropriate to an individual community. The housing officer and community engagement officer worked with the communities, building on the relationship the housing officer already had with people, to initiate and organise the events. Other partners joined the project, often relating to one specific site, and taking on a range of activities.Some of the activities undertaken will be explained:the introductory Fun Day, planting activities,creative and art activities, physically creative activities, a dog show, sports day and Play Down Memory Lane.

2.2.1 Fun Day

On each site the first event would be a“Fun Day” which would allow the children and community to start using the green spaces in the context of feeling safe, because of the organised nature of the event. In addition the project team began to make themselves known to the local children and community and start conversations about the potential future use of the space (Fig. 1).The Fun Day would include specific activities such as den building, martial arts, art and craft, a bouncy castle, a temporary sand-play area, team games and face-painting for the children.

There was always a tent where refreshments were served including hot and cold drinks,homemade cakes and ice-cream (with a free voucher). As the project went on it became clear that the refreshments were a really important aspect of these events for the members of the community.

2.2.2 Planting Activities

A wide range of planting activities were used across the different sites. Children were involved in planting bulbs, bluebells, perennials, herbs,wildflower meadows, hanging baskets and fruit trees. Small plants or seeds in containers decorated by children allowed the project’s aims to escape the boundary of the project site taking new planting out into the community. The children enjoyed taking a small part of the project home with them and taking care of it themselves (Fig. 2). Planting was a very popular activity with almost everyone at all the 24 sites. It was an activity that people of all ages participated in from early years groups to older adults and those with a range of abilities. Plants connected people to places in a way that nothing else did. The team worked with lots of schools to undertake planting at their local site and at some sites raised planters were built for the school to take over and maintain in the longer term.

2.2.3 Creative and Art Activities

Different creative activities were focussed on the character of the local community. Urban art,environmental installations, murals, sign design and decorations to temporarily or permanently transform sites, lantern making followed by a Christmas parade through the outdoor environment,painting bricks, nature mobiles, bird boxes, living letters and autumn crown making were all used(Fig. 3). Many of these activities used natural materials that were either found on site or brought by the children and the team. Art and craft activities were very popular and inclusive for all ages and abilities. The project team worked with a variety of other organisations in developing some of these activities in particular with primary schools and early years settings. The project also drew on local art practitioners such as the Urban Art group“My Life Project” a social enterprise working with children and young people across the city to develop a range of skills including spray art, t shirt printing and mural design. This group worked at a number of sites very successfully and this was something that older children and young people were keen to engage with. This allowed the team to talk with the young people about the needs and issues of their local green spaces in an informal way.

Young people from one secondary school were asked to think about ways of looking at outdoor places and to explore the concept of views both internal and external at one of the sites. A series of images and ‘frames’ were made to capture a range of both macro and micro views within the site, which were photographed by the young people. The young people were asked questions such as: Where did they find interesting at the site? Why? What type of use could they make of the site and where might this happen? These were discussed through their art work and exploration of views.

Working outdoors for the most part and with a mix of natural and non-natural materials the project offered the chance to transform familiar spaces through temporary changes or artistic interventions or even transform themselves into works of art. At one site local children were asked to become “Living Sculptures” and create a living sculpture trail. They designed costumes and art work to wear and gave a show at the site,the space was changed for a few hours and only the photographs and memories remain. However,the children realised they could transform the site themselves and have an impact on their own environment.

2.2.4 Physically Creative Activities

These included den building, orienteering,sculpture trail, Easter egg hunt, map making and trail setting. One child created a game called “Here to There” which was a building game using “junk”materials to get from one piece of play equipment to another without touching the ground. The team used this new game at many other sites because it was very successful and thoroughly enjoyed by all the children who engaged with it, not just the originator of the game. Because this active approach was welcomed by the children the team decided to invite a local parkour group to work with children at one of the sites. This helped the children find new ways of using the site including the existing fixed equipment, the landform and other natural features in more exciting ways than they would otherwise have done. Over time the team observed how and in what ways the children were using the space and eventually the landscape architect designed some basic interventions which would extend and enhance these uses making the space physically more challenging and engaging.

2.2.5 Dog Show

Because the pilot site was used by dog walkers the team initiated a dog show, something which we believe to be a unique and innovative community activity (Fig. 4). The dog show was intended to ensure that dog walkers, who were often the people who used a site most regularly and in many instances, were aware of what happens there, did not feel they would no longer be welcome on the site if changes were planned. Having the dog show highlighted their presence and made sure they felt welcome and included.

2.2.6 Sports Day

The introduction of a sports day between two local primary schools took some time to establish. In time this activity brought together two schools local to the pilot site who previously did not relate to each other, indeed hardly knew of each other. The first sports day was attended by the Lord Mayor who gave out the winning prizes of Easter eggs. The initial concept for the sports day was to engage with local school children and re-introduce them to the play space which was unused and mostly ignored as being “boring” and “just for dogs and alcies” (alcoholics). The sports day started with one class of children from one school and in its’ eighth year saw over 140 primary school children from two schools take part together with 15 children from a nearby early years setting who have their own races organised by the older children. Children are accompanied and cheered on by teachers, support staff, parents, grandparents,siblings, neighbours, dog walkers, alcoholics and anyone else attracted by the noise and fun in the park. Over the eight years the children have seen the gradual changes and improvements at their local green space and it has become a very popular and much valued place on their neighbourhood play map. The original children are now teenagers and younger brothers and sisters have followed in their footsteps, “it’s a tradition now”.

2.2.7 Play Down Memory Lane

Some sites still had a high percentage of older residents and this, together with the fact that sometimes there are misunderstandings about children’s play by older people, resulted in an activity called ‘Play Down Memory Lane’. These afternoon events included tea and cake and gave the older people the opportunity to bring photos of their memories to discuss their childhood play experiences with each other. This event was held at each of the eight priority sites and was very popular with older adults living close by. At one site the event has become an annual event. One year the Lord Mayor of Sheffield joined regulars for tea and cakes and brought some play memories of her own along to share, a local octogenarian provided some songs and there were vintage photos and paintings of the surrounding area on show and for sale with all proceeds going towards continuing the work at the local play space started during Living with Nature. The Play space is now popular with many older adults not only as a place to take their grandchildren but also as somewhere they can enjoy themselves, an outdoor social space to meet neighbours and friends.

2.3 “Living with Nature”: The Product

The playgrounds were set within a green area associated with each specific housing area yet the quality of the green area was poor usually existing of only grass, sometimes old shrubs and with paths through the area. On most sites the fixed play equipment had become damaged or broken and needed to be removed. One of the first things the project team did was to undertake observations of site users in the first months of the project which revealed very few users, only people walking through or walking their dogs. No-one was remaining in the spaces and no children were using the playgrounds.

Three examples of the 8 priority sites are shown below. Photographs are a valid form of data and sometimes pictures can speak louder than words, so for these three sites before and after photographs will be supported with limited text.

2.3.1 Community Playground

The lack of funding for maintenance at the ‘pilot site’ had resulted in swing seats being taken out leaving only the frames. In addition the circle that can be seen in the tarmac is where a roundabout was placed. An old climbing frame remained but without any form of safer surfacing beneath it (Fig. 5). During the initial pilot project a planter was made of gabions and planted up.Some of the older people in this community looked after the planting and have remained involved over a long number of years, until they were no longer able because of their health. The space associated with this housing area was quite large and the biodiversity was improved with the removal of tarmac areas, new tree planting and the introduction of differential mowing of the grass.New fixed play equipment was introduced in a less formulaic way than previously making the whole of the green space playable (Fig. 6).

2.3.2 Routes to Schools

The second site was on a route to a school that is used by many children everyday on their journey both to and from school (Fig. 7). The small playground had swing frames with no swings and there was evidence of anti-social behaviour such as drinking, and even drug taking. This added to a sense of dereliction and of the space not being safe to use.

The first physical change made to this small site was to remove the old swing frames and take up the tarmac. This was seeded with grass as an interim improvement because it was important to start the process of regeneration the space while the team worked with the local schools. Working with the community was a long process because the school had poor educational performance,partly because it is set in an economically and socially poor part of the city, and was focussed on educational improvement and thus did not have time to work with the project team. In time the team was able to work with the school and the desire was to have a play trail on the way to school.This small space now includes a short slide and other interesting and popular play opportunities clearly evidenced when some of the team were walking past and found a children’s birthday party using the new space. An alternative route to school,down some steps and a sloping path were enhanced for play by introducing a slide on the embankment and some informal elements for play to the side of the path (Fig. 8).

2.3.3 Public-Spaces in Communities

The third site was set back from a road junction, triangular in shape, with housing on two sides and woodland, which was used for many of the creative activities, on the third side. There is a large change in level across the site and while working with the community the project team discovered the slope is used for sledging when there is snow (Fig. 9, 10). All the play equipment had been removed leaving only the degrading tarmac in the midst of the grass and some of the fencing that used to surround the swings. The many vibrant activities that took place here in time attracted many people including residents from other parts of the city. The slope was immediately identified by the landscape architect as being in need of slides and working with the community revealed which part of the slope was used for sledging and therefore which part of the slope was suitable for the slides.

The introduction of sand in the play area took a lot of hard negotiation with the managers of the space because of their perceived issues with sand. Swings were not placed in a straight line, as usually happens, but were positioned at an angle to each other to make the experience more sociable.The original left over fencing was retained, repainted and had a circular hole cut in it, providing an additional opportunity for children’s play.

These three sites provide examples of the end product of the funded project and show the physical changes which could take place with relatively small amounts of money. However beyond the end of the funding some of the sites have a legacy which the project team did not anticipate.

3 “Living with Nature”: The Reflections

3.1 Practical Issues

As with any community activities the project team had responsibilities for a range of practical issues when planning, preparing and undertaking the events with and for the communities. Health and safety risk assessments were required for every activity because they all took place on council owned land. These risk assessments considered issues such as using tools and equipment, taking part in activities on site which may carry a risk to the participant, physical hazards on site such(trips, slips falls etc.), food standards and hygiene.There was also the important consideration of child and vulnerable adults protection policies and procedures set by the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust. These were adhered to at all times along with a policy about gaining permission to use photographs. Public Liability insurance was needed at every site. Some events, depending on their nature, required a special licence from Sheffield City Council which covered activities where more than a certain number of people might attend and where live music or any sort of live performance was going to be part of the event.

Other practical issues related to setting appropriate dates and locations for activities. This meant that activities targeted at children might take place in school holidays on the site, the sports day date was negotiated with both schools and took place on site. Many art, urban art and creative nature activities took place on the relevant community’s green space.

3.2 Limitations and Challenges

There were of course limitations and issues that influenced the planning, preparation and undertaking of events. Some communities included people of Pakistani heritage, the major ethnic minority group in the city, and remembering different cultural festivals such as Eid was very important. The project team worked with a diversity of cultures over the 3 year project and found unsurprisingly that Christmas was universally popular but particularly popular with Muslim children. Most people taking part in the project and living locally to the sites were just happy that there were positive things happening at the neglected and un-used play and green spaces close to their homes.The challenge was not to raise expectations too high as to what could be achieved in the short term but to raise aspirations as to what was possible and to help them re imagine how these places could be used then and there and in the future.

3.3 Some considerations

Many of the activities were conceived of,initiated and organised by the Living with Nature project team who provided a mechanism to organise the activities with the communities, which would not otherwise have happened. In reality the project and the team were the stimulus for a wide range of community events and activities.

On reflection some specific issues were deemed important to enhance the events and activities. One of these was the provision of food and the form of this varied from event to event.The type of food reflected the event or the season or was just what people asked for. Often the team invited local caterers, supermarkets or cafes to contribute food and drink or to cook or make something they thought would be appropriate.Sometimes people brought their own food for an event called “bring your own blanket” which was a community picnic with entertainment, games and music. Even if it was just tea and biscuits providing food was always a way to create a social atmosphere and a way to open a conversation whatever the language.

The importance of developing relationships with and the trust of individuals, groups and communities had not been anticipated but as the project developed it became clear that this was an essential approach to the success of the project.

4 “Living with Nature”: Legacy

Often projects end when the funding ends but the team are delighted that seven years on from the end of the funding Living with Nature has a legacy. This legacy is both physical and social and is evidence of the need and desire that there was to re-engage with the community’s green spaces, and for an increased level of socialisation within some of the communities.

4.1 Physical Legacy

Physically all of the eight priority sites have changes that have improved the play value from what it was before the project. Although not published this was evidenced by a Masters student dissertation undertaken in summer 2016 which assessed the play value of the spaces as they were,from photograph’s, and as they are now, from site visits, using the Woolley Lowe tool[5]. This assessment of the difference in the play value before and after the project showed an increase on all the sites. In addition to the eight priority sites, three of the other sites have also had physical improvements to their play space or community green space since the end of the project in 2014.

4.2 Social Legacy

Underpinning these physical activities has been an ongoing, and unanticipated, social legacy which takes several forms. First, three Friends groups began during the project. The first of these was on the pilot site and facilitated by the housing officer because of her concerns that the Tenants and Residents Association (TARA) was not expressing much interest in the green space.TARAs exist to represent tenants’ views to their landlord in a corporate way and have a focus on housing and the built fabric not on green spaces.In order to raise the profile of the green spaces the housing officer decided that a different mechanism was needed and so supported the establishment of a Friends group on the pilot site. This was successful and as time went on opportunities for Friends groups to be developed associated with two other sites were taken and became part of the ongoing legacy of Living with Nature. Part of the social legacy at some of the sites where a Friends group was formed was more around building confidence and an understanding that as a group people could come together and influence change in their community, building skills and learning how to organise and work as a team but also how to work in partnership with other groups and organisations to get things done. Cross community partnerships was not something we envisaged but which happened at a number of sites during the project and beyond with one community helping another to deliver an event or activity becoming quite a regular occurrence along with sharing knowledge and experiences.

Activities such as the dog show, sports day,Play Down Memory Lane have now taken place for eight consecutive years on one particular site. The Friends group there have worked hard and continue to work to find ways to make their neighbourhood play space a valued and well used place for the surrounding community. The events started during the Living with Nature project at one site are now seen as important as part of the local“calendar” and are well supported and enjoyed by all age groups but especially by local children who have seen their play space transformed over the last eight years. At other sites where “Friends” groups have been formed there is also a continuation of activities and events to a lesser degree: regular litter picks, planting and gathering fruit are all part of a cycle of activities which keep the sites active and used, whilst play days and other activities during school holidays are a feature at some sites. There has also been a continued drive to access additional funding by some Friends groups and community groups at some of the sites and this has had some success. New planting, play interventions, funding for events and activities, additional seating and other further improvements have meant that Living with Nature has had a level of sustainability into the future which was not initially envisaged.

5 “Living with Nature”: Lessons

The “Living with Nature” project implemented under the policy of the “Children’s Plan” in the United Kingdom has a reference to the construction of child-friendly cities under the background of China’s “14thFive-Year Plan”.Learned from the ‘living with nature’ project, this project mobilizes the whole society to participate in the construction of child-friendly environments in communities, and actively promotes children’s participation and integration into urban social life.At the same time, this project also improves play value of playgrounds in communities by designing playgrounds with more natural elements.

5.1 Joint-Participation in Generation of Child-Friendly Environments

This article introduces in detail the whole process of the implementation of the government's overall planning policy at the local level under the background of the British society. In this process,the project team with the academic research team played the key role to integrate the government departments, local communities, colleges and universities, social organizations, foundations and other organizations. By working together, there were significant improvements in the communities.This experience might help to provide the general idea about working together to mobilize the forces of the whole society to create child-friendly city in an effective way. To a certain extent, it can help the Chinese landscape architects and urban planners to broaden their horizons and actively think about multiple fields and multiple departments.

5.2 Ways to Encourage Children to Participate in Community Social Lives

In addition, this article provides a detailed introduction to the organization of community activities and the renovation of children’s recreational venues during the project, which greatly enriches the effective organization methods of community participation activities. At the same time, the project also fully demonstrated the power of non-governmental organizations in creating a child-friendly community, which helps providing a reference for the creation of child-friendly community in Chinese cities.

5.3 Methods to Create Child-Friendly Public Spaces in the Community

As the most important part in the daily life cycle of children, the community environment has an important influence on children’s experiences of growing-up. Improving the quality of outdoor environment in communities can be an effective means to promote the friendliness of children’s growth space. The “Living with Nature” project promotes the naturalization of children’s playgrounds by changing the traditional Kit, Fence,Carpet playgrounds into playgrounds with more natural elements, which largely increases their play value for children in different ages. Therefore, the natural design of children’s recreational venues can provide solutions for the improvement of the spatial quality of children’s playgrounds in urban communities in Chinese cities.

In summary, the development process and successful experience of the “Living with Nature” project help to provide suggestions for the construction of child-friendly cities in China in terms of building joint working groups, child participation methods, and methods of design playground with better play value. Taking the economic and social background of Chinese cities into consideration, the project provides practical strategies and experience to create child-friendly cities from an international perspective.

Sources of Figures:

Photo credits to authors.

(Editor / WANG Yaying)