Case Study Nagpur, Maharashtra

27 Pages·2016·10.72 MB·English

buildings
Article
Assessing the Play Provisions for
Children in Urban Neighborhoods of India:
Case Study Nagpur, Maharashtra
KirtiD.Bhonsle*andVinayakS.Adane
DepartmentofArchitecture,V.N.I.T.,Nagpur440010,India;[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
AcademicEditor:ManuelDuartePinheiro
Received:4June2016;Accepted:9August2016;Published:17August2016
Abstract: Thecreationofsatisfyingurbanenvironmentscallsfortheplanners,designersandpolicy
makerstounderstandthestructuresthatcauseresidentstofeelsatisfiedwiththeirenvironments.
Thepaperfocusesonqualitativeaspectsofthechildrensplayspacesintheurbanneighborhoods
of Nagpur which were analysed with the background of their daily activity schedule survey,
theirassement of the existing play provisions and their aspirations from their neighborhood
environment quality. Apart from these studies, the childrens and their parents perceptions of
thequalityofurbanresidentialenvironmentswasalsostudied. Theliteraturereviewgaveanextract
ofrelevantattributesofenvironmentalquality(EQ)whichbecamethetheoriticalbasisforthework.
Theresearchgeneratesanapproachtoassessingthechildfriendlinessofoururbanneighborhoods,
whichincertainwaysisnotevencateringtothemostfundamentalrightofthechildtoplay;italso
generates a matrix of children’s needs and parameters relevant to Indian context. A theoretical
model of the residents satisfaction is also generated which forms the base for the qualitative
questionnaireanalysisinSPSS20withasetofdependentandindependentvariableswhichshows
thecorrelationoftheresident’ssatisfactionwithchildfriendlinessofneighborhoodsintheIndian
context. Theregressionmodelandmathematicalequationasanoutcomeofthequalitativeanalysis
wasalsovalidatedupontwootherurbanneighborhoodsofthecityofNagpur. Theresearchwithall
itstoolsusedandtheapproachadoptedcanhelpinundertakingsuchchild-centeredresearchesin
othercitiesofIndiawhichhavetheirownuniqueissuesandcharacteristicsofurbangrowth.
Keywords: urban residential environment; resdients perception; child friendly environments;
socialties
1. Introduction
Theresearchfocusesontherelationshipbetweentheresidentsandtheirneighborhoodofresidence
inanurbanenvironment,whichisatypicalissueinenvironmentalpsychologyondifferentlevels
ofhome,neighborhoodandcitywithdifferentlevelsofusers,i.e.,children,adolescents,adultsand
theelderly[1]. Theperspectiveoftheresidentsisextremelyimportantinunderstandingtheurban
residentialenvironmentqualityassomeguidelinesandstandardscanbeestablishedthatcanhelp
inassessingtheurbandesignandplanningprogramsofinterventionaimedatimprovingtheurban
residentialenvironment. Theapproachbasedonwhatpublicseeksintheenvironment,howittrades
onesetofvalueswithanotherandhowitcanbemotivatedtomakechoicesaboutenvironmental
changesbeforeacrisisoccursismorepracticalandworthwhile[2,3].
Thequalityoftheurbanenvironmentdirectlyinfluencesthesocialandeconomicdevelopment
of the city. Good residential environments can bring socio-economic benefits to the city whereas
badenvironemtqualitywillobstructurbaneconomicdevelopment[4]. Theconceptofenvironment
Buildings2016,6,31;doi:10.3390/buildings6030031 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings2016,6,31 2of27
quality can be interpreted either objectively or more subjectively which brings the environment
conditions to be measured objectively and the environment quality to be measured subjectively.
As evironmental quality is multidimensional in nature it can be characterised by the use of wide
rangingmethodologies[5].
Researchinenvironmentalpsychologyhasincreasinglyturnedtowardsmeasuringperceived
environmentalqualityofwhichoneresearchobjectiveistostudythecongruencebetweenthequality
ofenvironmentsandpeoplesexpectations,goalsandvaluesystems[6].
1.1. ChildrenandTheirLocalPlayinUrbanResidentialEnvironments
Thewordschildrenandplayareinseparable,andchildrensrighttoplayisrightlyrecognised
as one of the fundamental rights by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC).By2050,about70%oftheworldspopulationwillliveinurbanareasandchildrencurrently
living in urban areas account for nearly half of the world population. Childrens participation in
researchcanbeensuredbyworkingwiththemtoselectmethodsthatareappropriatetothemand
to the research aim states [7]. Play has been defined as one which includes activities of children
thatarenotcontrolledbyadultsandthatdonotnecessarilyconformtoanyrules. Itexplainsthat
play takes place either away from the oversight of adults, near adults who are not involved or
near adults who with sensitive support, enrich children’s opportunities to play in their own way.
Recent research [8] confirms that there is a direct relationship between play and children’s well
being. Unstructuredplayisanaturalbehavior,whichamongotherbenefitscontributestochildren’s
braindevelopment,enhancescreativityandbuildsresiliencetostressfactorsintheirenvironment.
Children’ssenseofcontrol,experiencedthroughplay,iscentraltochildren’sevolvingcapacities.
Someoftheindicatorsoflocalenvironmentqualityasgivenbygrowingupincitiessitesareas
showninTable1.
Table1.Indicatorsoflocalenvironmentquality.
Rating SocialQualities PhysicalQualities
Greenareas
Socialintegration
Basicfacilities
Freedomfromthreats
Activitysettings
Positive Cohesivecommunity
Freedomfromphysicaldangers
Securetenure
Freedomtomove
Communityselfhelp
Peergatheringplaces
Politicalpowerlessness
Lackofgatheringspaces
Insecuretenure
Heavytraffic
Negative Socialstigmaandexclusion
Trash/litter
Boredom
Lackofactivitiesandservices
Racialtensions
Source—GrowingupinCitiesproject,2010[8].
1.2. Children’sNeeds
Inresidentialbuiltenvironmentsthechildren’sneedsaredefinedasfollows.
(a) Physiologicalneed—Thecomfortexperiencedduringphysicalmovementsandactionssuchas
walking,sitting,standing,seeingandhearingplayingorunfoldingactivities. Spacesobstruction
freeandincreasescompetences.
• Accessibility—It is the relative nearness of one place to another indicating easiness of
reaching destination from origin. As a spatial analytic measure it plays a vital role for
decisionmakersindecidingwheretolocatepublicfacilitiesoramenitiestomaximizeutility.
• Comfort—Increasingonescompetences/abilities. Whenchildrenfeelcomfortableintheir
physical surroundings they will venture to explore materials or events around them.
Buildings2016,6,31 3of27
Mostlikelythesesettingsinvolvevariedandmoderatelevelsofstimulationforallsenses.
Patterns of movement that are moderately diverse help maintain optimum levels of
responsivenessandmakechildrenfeelcomfortable.
• Connectivity—Theextenttowhichthepedestriannetworkprovidescontinuousmovement
without any physical obstructions links to key trip origins and destinations as well as
theextentoflinkagesbetweendifferentroutesonnetwork.
(b) Physical needs—The comfort experienced from external influences like climatic protection,
trafficaccidents,walkingpathmodalconflicts.
• Safety—It means safety from stumbling, tripping, slipping and traffic accidents.
Childrenhavegreatconcernsabouttheirpersonalsafetybuttheirstrategiesfordealingwith
dangerarelimited. Livinginastateofcontinualconcernaboutpersonalsafetycanwear
the body’s immune system, capacity to relax and overall health. Measures like physical
barriers,segregationoftraffic,nooksandcornersandlevelchangescanbeincorporated.
• Protectionfromsunwindsandrains.
• Convenienceofwalkingoverothermodesoftransport.
(c) Physiological needs—The mental and emotional comfort achieved from the sensory and
memorableexperiencessuchaslegibility,senseofplaceandbelongingness,personalsecurity,
relaxation,activeandpassiveengagement,enjoyment,equityanddiscovery.
• Conviviality—Traversingwithactiveandpassiveengagementlikeinteractionwithpeople,
naturalandbuiltenvironmentandotherroadusers.
• Conspicuous—Clearandlegiblesigning,information,orientationanddirection.
• Attractiveness—Qualityofaesthetics,appealingtosensesandinteresting.
Thechildren’sneedsandtheirinterfacewiththeirlocalenvironmentledtothecreationofamatrix,
whichisshowninFigure1below.

Figure1.Matrixshowingthechildren’sneedsandparameters.
Buildings2016,6,31 4of27
1.3. ObjectiveandHypotheses
The main objective of the research is to define, analyze and model the concept of urban
residentialenvironmentintheIndiancontextreferringtothetiertwocityofNagpurinMaharashtra,
India understudy.
Theresearchhypothesesareasfollows:
(1) Theperceivedqualityofurbanresidentialenvironmentisahierarchialmultiattributeconcept.
(2) Enhancingthepsycho-socialattributesandchildfriendlyparameterscanimprovetheresidential
satisfactionamongtheresidents.
1.4. MethodologyofStudy
ThemethodologyofthestudyasshowninFigure2,beginswiththeliteraturedataonchildren
in cities in India with the various issues that they face as the blessing or a curse of growing up in
urbanIndia. Thestudymajorlyfocusesontheissueswiththechildrensbasicrighttoplay. Thepaper
bringsforththeresultsofthethreeprimary,supportingsurveysrelatingtochildrensdailyroutine,
their opinion on the existing play provisions and then their aspirations from their neighborhoods
infuture,whichsetsuptheprefacetotakeupthemainsurveyusingSPSStoestablishtherelation
between the residents satisfaction and analyzing it if it is being enhanced by the creation of ideal
playprovisionsintheneighborhoods,withthecreationofamodelandestablishingitsrelevanceby
validatingitonothertwoneighborhoodsaswell.

Figure 2. Methodology of study.
Figure2.Methodologyofstudy.
Buildings2016,6,31 5of27
1.4.1. ContextualizingtheLocationforGroundworkinIndia
This study is based in Nagpur city, as it exemplifies the typical Indian grade II metropolitan
city. It marksthegeographiccenterofIndiaandconsistofanoldcitycoreandarapidlyspreading
extensionsupportingapopulationinexcessof4million. Itishometoamoderateindustrialbase,
governmentoffices,educationinstitutionsandagrariantrade.
ThestudyfocusesonurbanneighborhoodsofNagpurcity,belongingtothevariousadministrative
zones and adhering to the norms and policies of Nagpur municipal corporation and Nagpur
improvementtrust. TheTownandcountryplanningorganization(TCPO)andUrbandevelopment
plans formulation and implementation (UDPFI) guidelines set the basic planning standards for
neighborhoodsincitiescreatinganoperationalgroundforeaseofcomparison.
1.4.2. DelimitationandCharacterizationoftheStudyNeighborhoodsinNagpur
Neighborhoods were selected for observation based on administrative zones with varying
densitiesinNagpur. Dataonneighborhoodcharacteristicswerecollectedbytwotrainedresearch
assistantsbymeansofneighborhoodobservationsintheeightneighborhoods. Theobserverswere
notpartoftheresearchtoenhanceunbaisedcollectionofthedata. Theresearchassistantsobserved
theneighborhoodsusingachecklistwhichtheycompletedbymutualagreement. Theneighborhood
boundariesweredefinedbythelocaldatabasesfromthemunicipalorganizationssothatthedata
couldbeeasilyinterpretedbythelocalpolicymakers. Ingeneral,theseboundariescorrespondwith
whatpeoplepercieveastheirneighborhoodandboundariesoftencoincidewithphysicalboundaries
suchasarailway,busyroad,channelortunnel.
1.4.3. DefiningtheParticipants
During the process of research, it was observed in the walk through surveys that mostly
the children playing in parks, streets and open spaces were of the age of 7–12 years in groups,
which prompted to take this age bracket for study. In addition, this was supported by researches
donebyChawala(2010),Goyal(2009)showingthisagetobeofindependentmobilityandfreedomin
neighborhood. Hencethisagegroupistakenupforstudy. Childrenbeingthefocususergroupfor
research,thesamplesizesforvariouspilotsurveysforqualitativeaspectswerecalculatedusingthe
Equation(1)mentionedbelow:
Samplesize(SS) = {z2×p×[1−p]}/c2 (1)
where,z-zvaluee.g.,1.96for95%confidencelevel;p,percentagepickingachoice,expressedasdecimal;
c,confidenceinterval,expressedasdecimal(e.g.,0.04=±4).
Theoverallsamplesizeof872respondentsconsistingofchildrenbetweenageof7–12yearsas
theyarethemajorityinthesetofusersassessingplayprovisionswhowereinterviewedwiththeir
parentsforqualitativeaspectsoftheresearchlikedailyactivityschedule(384),opinionontheexisting
playprovisions(120)andthesatisfactionwiththeirneighborhoods(368).
1.4.4. QualitativeSurveys
Parents’andchildren’sabilitytograspandrespondtothecomplexissuesofevaluationstudy
which were never a part of city and neighborhood surveys was depended upon for the surveys.
ThepaperemphasizesonthequalitativeaspectsoftheresidentialbuiltenvironmentsofNagpurwhich
wereanalyzedusingthevariousinteractivetoolslike:
• Interviews with children had a sequence of queries from orders and specific to thought
provokingencouragingwishfulthinkinganddreamingaboutidealplayspacesinneighborhoods
(Children’ssatisfactionwithexistingplayprovisions).
• Interviewswithparentsandchildren(Children’sdailyroutinesurvey).
Buildings2016,6,31 6of27
2016, 6, 31  6 of 28 
• Asitispartofanarchitecturalandplanningresearch,thedesignandlayoutofthequestionnaire
isvisuadaldlys avpaplueea ltion gt,hteh eocrdreearteidv eadnrda wreisntgricwteodr kssehqoupesnucerg oefd qcuheilsdtiroennntaoirree sapnodn dgiivneas far edeemepaenrn er
insight of the assessment. 
throughsketches,notesetc. Althoughofnostatisticalworth,itaddsvaluetotheorderedand
 RESS Statistical analysis—The data input is done in SPSS to know the normality, reliability, 
restrictedsequenceofquestionnaireandgivesadeeperinsightoftheassessment.
validity  of  data  and  the  appropriateness  of  the  variables  used  in  the  design  of  the 
• RESS Statistical analysis—The data input is done in SPSS to know the normality, reliability,
questionnaire which in turn led to the creation of a model of children’s satisfaction scale in 
validityofdataandtheappropriatenessofthevariablesusedinthedesignofthequestionnaire
the Indian context and in turn the importance of each variable on the output of residents 
whichinturnledtothecreationofamodelofchildren’ssatisfactionscaleintheIndiancontext
satisfaction. 
andinturntheimportanceofeachvariableontheoutputofresidentssatisfaction.
2. Survey Tools 
2. SurveyTools
Structured interviews were used as a qualitative research methodology. These interviews were 
Structured interviews were used as a qualitative research methodology. These interviews
best suited for engaging in respondents or the focus group of children as it was beneficial to 
werebestsuitedforengaginginrespondentsorthefocusgroupofchildrenasitwasbeneficialto
compare/contrast  participant  responses  in  order  to  answer  the  research  question.  For  these 
compare/contrastparticipantresponsesinordertoanswertheresearchquestion. Forthesestructured
structured qualitative interviews, schedules that list the wording and sequencing of questions were 
quparleitpaatirvede iwnhteicrhv iienwcrse,asscehde tdhue lreeslitahbailtitlyis atnthd ecrwedoirbdiliintyg oafn tdhes ereqsueeanrcchin dgatoaf. questionswereprepared
whichincreasedthereliabilityandcredibilityoftheresearchdata.
2.1. Childrens Daily Activity Schedule Survey 
2.1. ChildrensDailyActivityScheduleSurvey
In an effort to understand the residential satisfaction as a quotient of children’s play in the 
neiIgnhbaonrheoffoodrst, tao quunedsetirosntannaidret hsuerrveesyi dweanst iacolnsdauticstfeadc ti(othne arsesaulqtsu oint iefonrtmo fofc hgirladprhen a’sndp ltaayblein ist he
nesighhobwonr hiono tdhse, apqlautee s1ti obnenloawir)e tsou rkvneoyww tahsec oanvderuacgtee dd(atihlye raecstuivltitsyi nscfhoermduolef gorfa cphhiladnrdent aibnl eviasrisohuosw  n
inntheeigphlbaoterh1obodelso wof) tNoakgnpouwr. thTehae vqeruaegsetiodnasil yvaacriteivdi tyfroscmh ekdnuolewoinfgc htihlderire npilnacvea roiof unsenigehigbhobrhoorhoodo, ds
ofdNisatgapnucer. fTrohmeq sucehsotiooln asnvda rtiueidtiofrnosm clkanssoews itnog tthhee itrimplea csepoenftn ebiyg htbhoemrh oiondte,rdacistitnang cwefitrho mthsecirh opoelear nd
tuigtrioonusp cilna sthsees nteoigthhbeotrimhoeodsp. entbytheminteractingwiththeirpeergroupintheneighborhood.
ThTehseu sruvrevyerye vreevaeleadletdh atht,awt, iwthitthh ethper epsreenstenptl apnlnainnnginagn danpda rpeanrtesnmtsi nmdisnedtsse,ttsh,e thche ilcdhrieldnrehna vheamveo re
timmeooref tthimeier odfa tyhesipre dnatyi nspsetantti cina scttaivtiict iaecstilvikiteietsr alivkeel ltirnagvetlolinscgh tooo slcbhyooblu bsy, sbcuhso, osclhhoooul rhso,utursit, itounithioonu rs
anhdosulerse panhdo usrlesewp hhicohurasm wohuinchts atomaolumnotss tto1 8a–l2m0ohsto 1f8th–2e0d ha yoaf sthceo mdapya raesd ctoomthpeardeydn taom tihcea dctyivniatmieiscf or
activities for their overall development like recreation, play and socializing which is as low as 2–3 h 
theiroveralldevelopmentlikerecreation,playandsocializingwhichisaslowas2–3hadayasshown
a day as shown in the graph in Figure 3. 
inthegraphinFigure3.

Figure3.Children’sdailyactivityschedulesurvey.
Figure 3. Children’s daily activity schedule survey.
2016, 6, 31  7 of 28 
Buildings2016,6,31 7of27
This situation is also attributed to the families migrating to cities for work and hence into the 
nuclear family system with both parents working and hence preferring the schools that offer the 
Thissituationisalsoattributedtothefamiliesmigratingtocitiesforworkandhenceintothe
day boarding facility as children can play within the school premises. More so the stereotypes of 
nuclearfamilysystemwithbothparentsworkingandhencepreferringtheschoolsthatoffertheday
sending children to good schools even if they are very far from the residence leading to more travel 
boardingfacilityaschildrencanplaywithintheschoolpremises. Moresothestereotypesofsending
time  for  kids  and  hence  children  finding  very  less  time  to  relax,  play,  socialize  in  their 
childrentogoodschoolseveniftheyareveryfarfromtheresidenceleadingtomoretraveltimeforkids
neighborhoods. The existing situation calls for a serious concern to the society and human race in 
andhencechildrenfindingverylesstimetorelax,play,socializeintheirneighborhoods. Theexisting
giving  a  future  generation  of  children  in  urban  areas,  with  low  physical,  mental,  social, 
situationcallsforaseriousconcerntothesocietyandhumanraceingivingafuturegenerationof
psychological development. 
childreninurbanareas,withlowphysical,mental,social,psychologicaldevelopment.
2.2. Childrens Survey about the Existing Play Provisions in Their Neighborhoods 
2.2. ChildrensSurveyabouttheExistingPlayProvisionsinTheirNeighborhoods
With the basis of the daily activity schedule of children, the research also tried to understand 
Withthebasisofthedailyactivityscheduleofchildren,theresearchalsotriedtounderstand
the children’s satisfaction with the existing play facilities as they are in the various neighborhoods 
thechildren’ssatisfactionwiththeexistingplayfacilitiesastheyareinthevariousneighborhoods
of Nagpur. The questions ranged from children’s preferences to spend leisure time indoor/outdoor, 
ofNagpur. Thequestionsrangedfromchildren’spreferencestospendleisuretimeindoor/outdoor,
their frequency of visit to play areas, time, mode of travel, preferable distance to play areas, so as to 
theirfrequencyofvisittoplayareas,time,modeoftravel,preferabledistancetoplayareas,soastobe
be accompanied or un‐accompanied with parents or elderly. 
accompaniedorun-accompaniedwithparentsorelderly.
The questionnaire survey was conducted in which the results (as seen in the graphs in Figures 
The questionnaire survey was conducted in which the results (as seen in the graphs in
4 and 5) showed that, most children (72%) prefer to go outdoors for play but the access to the parks 
Figures4and5) showed that, most children (72%) prefer to go outdoors for play but the access
is such that most of them have to be accompanied (59%) by their parents once a week to the nearby 
totheparksissuchthatmostofthemhavetobeaccompanied(59%)bytheirparentsonceaweek
parks and playgrounds and on vehicles as they are not within the walkable distance from their 
tothenearbyparksandplaygroundsandonvehiclesastheyarenotwithinthewalkabledistance
place of residence. Children and their parents had the willingness to pay for the parks (71%) if they 
from their place of residence. Children and their parents had the willingness to pay for the parks
were well maintained with variety of play and within a walkable range of 500 m from their 
(71%)iftheywerewellmaintainedwithvarietyofplayandwithinawalkablerangeof500mfrom
residences. 
theirresidences.

Figure4.Children’ssatisfactionwithexistingplayprovisionsintheirneighborhoods.
Figure 4. Children’s satisfaction with existing play provisions in their neighborhoods.
Buildings2016,6,31 8of27
2016, 6, 31  8 of 28 
2016, 6, 31  8 of 28 

FFiigguurree5 5.. CChhiillddrreenn’’ssp prreeffeerreenncceessf foorrp plalayyp prroovvisisioionnssa annddp paarrkkssi ninn neeigighhbboorhrhoooodds.s. 
Figure 5. Children’s preferences for play provisions and parks in neighborhoods. 
TThheeF Figiugurere6 a6l saolssoh oswhoswgrsa pghraspwhist hwointhly o(2n6ly% )(2o6f%ch)i lodfr ecnhialnddrepna raenndts preapreonrttisn rgeopfobretiinngg soaft ibsfieiendg 
The Figure 6 also shows graphs with only (26%) of children and parents reporting of being 
wsaitthisftiheedp wlaiythp rtohvei spiolanys .pTrhoevirseiaosnosn. sTohfet hreeiarsodnisss aotfi sftahcetiiro ndibsesaintigsfaaccctieosnsi bbieliitnyg, paococresmsiabiinlitteyn, apnocoe,r 
satisfied with the play provisions. The reasons of their dissatisfaction being accessibility, poor 
lamcakinotfevnaarniectey, liancpkl oayf ,veatrci.ety in play, etc. 
maintenance, lack of variety in play, etc. 

FFiigguurree6 6.. CChhiillddrreenn’’sso oppiinniioonno onnt thheee exxisisttininggp plalayyp prroovvisisioionnssi nint htheeirirn neeigighhbboorhrhooooddss.. 
Figure 6. Children’s opinion on the existing play provisions in their neighborhoods. 
The surveys taken up above clearly showed that the children in the first case have very less 
TThhe essuurrvveeyyss ttaakkeenn uupp aabboovvee cclleeaarrllyy sshhoowweeddt hthaattt htehec hcihldilrdernenin itnh ethfier sftircsats ceahsae vheavveer yvelersys lteimss e
time for play in the current lifestyle and other priorities and even if they try to play in their 
tifmore pfloary ipnlathy eicnu rtrheen tcluifrersetnytl eliafnesdtyolteh earnpdr ioorthiteiers parnidoreitvieens iafnthde yevtreyn toif ptlhaeyyi ntrtyh etior npeliagyh bionr hthooeidrs ,
neighborhoods, the planning of play spaces and its maintenance and distance does not favors its 
ntehigehpblaonrhnoinogdso,f tphlea ypslapnanceinsga nodf iptlsamy asipnatecensa nacneda intds mdiastinantecneadnocees annodt fdaivsotarsncites dporoeps enroatn fdaveoffresc tiitvs e
proper and effective use by the children in the neighborhoods. 
purosepebry atnhde echffieldctrievne iunseth beyn tehieg hcbhoilrdhroeond isn. the neighborhoods. 
2.3. Children’s Aspirations from Their Neighborhoods 
2.3. Children’s Aspirations from Their Neighborhoods
Buildings2016,6,31 9of27
2.3. Children’sAspirationsfromTheirNeighborhoods
2016, 6, 31  9 of 28 
Theprimarysurveysconductedabovetoknowthedailyactivityscheduleandthenopinionon
The primary surveys conducted above to know the daily activity schedule and then opinion on 
theexistingplayprovisionsintheirneighborhoods,furtherledtoanenquirytoknowthechildren’s
the existing play provisions in their neighborhoods, further led to an enquiry to know the children’s 
aspirationsfromtheirneighborhoodsforwhichaworkshopwasconductedinwhichalectureon
aspirations from their neighborhoods for which a workshop was conducted in which a lecture on 
children’sdreamsabouttheirneighborhoodwasconducted. Thechildrenherehadtoimagineand
children’s dreams about their neighborhood was conducted. The children here had to imagine and 
sketchtheneighborhoodoftheirdreamsinwhichtheywouldliketoresideasisshowninFigure7the
sketch the neighborhood of their dreams in which they would like to reside as is shown in Figure 7 
workshopinprogress. Thegroupconsistedofalmost100participantsfromvariousneighborhoods
the  workshop  in  progress.  The  group  consisted  of  almost  100  participants  from  various 
ofNagpur.
neighborhoods of Nagpur. 

Figure 7. Children’s aspirations workshop. 
Figure7.Children’saspirationsworkshop.
The outcome was a variety with children’s desire for water, sand, construction, animals, and 
expTlhoreatoiountcs oinm tehewira pslaay vina rnieeitgyhbwoirthhoocdhsi ladsr eshno’swdn eisni rtehef oFriguwrae t8e rw, istahn gda,mceosn lisktreu sctteipopne, oann itmhea ls,
anrdoaedx spildoer aatwioanys firnomth peiarrkpelady vienhniceleigs,h tbhoerirh ofoonddsnaessss hwoitwhn aninimthaels Finig tuhree g8arwdietnh ogra mpaersk lnikeearsbtye papned on
themraonayd gsaimdeesa iwn alayrfgreo gmropuaprsk wedithv eohthicelre sc,htihlderiernf ownidthnines psrwotietchteadn ibmouanlsdianritehse. gardenorparknearby
andmaTnhye gqaumaleitsaitnivlea argspeegcrtso uopf sstwudityhinogt hthere cuhribladnre nnewighitbhoinrhporoodtse citne dregbaorudn tdoa trhiees u.sers as children 
andT hteheqiur aplhityastiicvael aesnpveicrtosnomfesntut days inthge thpelauy rbparonvniseiiognhsb ionr htohoemds biny rmegeaarnds toof ththeeu qseuresstaiosncnhailidrer en
ansdutrhveeiyrsp ohf ycshiicladlreenn vainrodn tmheeinr tpaasretnhtes pallaoyngp wroivthis itohneisr ipnatrhtiecmipabtyiomn eina nthseo wftohreksqhuoeps tciolenanrlayi rdeesfuinrevse ys
oftchhei ltdyrpeincaal ncdhatrhaecitrerpiastriecns tosfa alno nugrbwanit hnethigehirboprahrotiocdip aantido nquinaltithieesw thoeryk snhuorptucrlee ainr ltyhde einfidnieasnt choenttyepxti cal
chaasr ahcitgehrilsigtihctseodf iann Tuarbblea n2.n eighborhoodandqualitiestheynurtureintheindiancontextashighlighted
inTable2.

FiguFrieg u8r. eD 8r. aDwrainwginsg ms madaed eb yby c chhilidldrreenn,,  wwhhiicchh s shhoowws sth teh qeu qauliatyli otyf  tohfe  tphlea yp plaryov pisrioovniss tihoenys  atshpeiyre a fsopr iirne  for 
Figure8. Drawingsmadebychildren,whichshowsthequalityoftheplayprovisionstheyaspire
in ththeeirir  nneeigighhbboorrhhooooddss, , aawwaayy  frfroomm t hthe et rtarfafficf,i cw, withit hn antuarteu raen adn adn iamnaimls aalns da nwdi thw iat hv aar iveatyr ieotfy p olaf yp lay 
forpoinssptibohsielsiiitrbiielnsite.i eigs.h borhoods, away from the traffic, with nature and animals and with a variety of
playpossibilities.
Buildings2016,6,31 10of27
Table2.Characteristicsofneighborhoodandqualitiestheydevelop.
CharacteristicsofUrban
QualitiesTheyNurture
Neighborhood
• Asenseofbelongingtothesameeconomicclass
• Uniformityinthesizesofplots
• Governedbythemajorroadscarryingtrafficloadsactingas
• Sizeofneighborhood
edgestotheneighborhoods
• Vehicularroadsthroughout
• Nofreedomofmovementindividuallyforchildren&elderly
• Lackofmaintainance • Repairofpublicutilitiesandfacilitiesingrainingaquality
• Parkingwithinplotsandon toadjust
footpathsalongroads • Nodoorstepplayspacesoronstreets
• Pedestrianfacilitieslackingbehind • Noeaseofwalkingorcycling
• EmphasisonFSIcoverage • Ignoringthespecificneedsofusersinneighborhood
• Accesstoparksand
• Childrenaccompaniedbyelders
playgroundshindered
2.4. ResidentsPerceptionSurvey
In addition to the issues stated above after the primary survey and observation survey,
the neighborhood evaluations revealed absence of many child friendly aspects that make the
environment inclusive, comfortable and nurture a sense of belonging towards the neighborhood.
Theusersreiteratedhavingtonegotiatewiththeirenvironswhileresolvingtheirneeds. Thepilot
studyhelpedinidentificationofthevariablesthatrequiredinvestigationintheresidentialenvironment
satisfactionscalewithaconcernforchildrensplayprovisions.
Asmanysocialsciencesstudiescompletelyignorethephysicalenvironment,materialconditions
arealsoimportantcomponentsofneighborhoods. Peoplesinteractionswiththephysicalplacetheir
modificationsofitandthesymbolicmeaningstheyattributetoitaremeansofdevelopingattachment.
When the physical environment is considered, there is much variation in how it is parameterized.
It hasbeenrepresentedbybuiltfeatureswithsymbolicorpracticalvalue,suchasarchitecturalstyle,
landscapeandhistoricalsignificance,theamountofopenspace,theconditionofstreetsandbuildings
andnoiselevel,etc.[9].
Overtimeseveralresearcheshavebeenconductedontherelationshipbetweenurbanresidents
and their environment. Bonaiuto et al. studied the relationship between inhabitants and their
neighborhoodsofresidenceintheurbanenvironmentofRomefromtheenvironmentalpsychological
viewandproposedtwodistinctiveinstruments.Theseinstrumentsconsistedof11scalesofmeasuringthe
perceivedenvironmentalqualitiesoftheurbanneighborhoodswithonescalemeasuringneighborhood
attachment. This new version of perceived residential environment quality and neighborhood
attachmentlargelyimprovedinternalconsistencywithrespecttoearlierstudies[10].
IntheIndiancontext,thecontributionofthesocialenvironmenttotheresidentialsatisfaction
of individuals and households is significant. The social environment comprises the relationships,
interactions, and social activities that an individual or household participates in, as well as those
thatsurroundthemintheimmediateneighborhood. AsperthestudiesdonebyresearchersinIndia,
the builtenvironmentsintheIndiancontexthavespatialconfigurationssuchthattheyencourage
streets as spaces to socialize and play which also correlates with the findings of the international
studiesthatchildrenpreferplacesthatarebusierandfrequentednotonlybyotherchildrenbutby
peopleofallages. However,besidesthesebenefits,itisgenerallyacceptedthatchildrendonotplayto
achieveanexternalrewardorgoal,butbecausetheywanttoplay[11].