Children Young People Mobilities

7/31/2019 Children Young People Mobilities

1/11

This article was downloaded by: [31.205.42.85]On: 03 May 2012, At: 08:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

MobilitiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

ht tp:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ rmob20

The Road Less Travelled NewDirections in Children's and YoungPeople's Mobilit yJohn Barker

a, Peter Kraftl

b, John Horton

c& Fait h Tucker

c

a Centre for Human Geography, School of Sport and Educat ion,Brunel University, UKb

Department of Geography, University of Leicester, UKc

Centre for Children and Youth, The Universit y of Nort hampton,

UK

Available online: 04 Feb 2009

To cite this article: John Barker, Peter Kraft l, John Hort on & Faith Tucker (2009): The Road LessTravelled New Direct ions in Children's and Young People's Mobil ity, Mobil it ies, 4:1, 1-10

To link t o this art icle: http:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 17450100802657939

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450100802657939http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmob20


2/11

Introduction

The Road Less Travelled NewDirections in Childrens and YoungPeoples Mobility

JOHN BARKER*, PETER KRAFTL**, JOHN HORTON{ & FAITHTUCKER{

*Centre for Human Geography, School of Sport and Education, Brunel University, UK

**Department of Geography, University of Leicester, UK{Centre for Children and Youth, The University of Northampton, UK

This collection emerges from the intersection of two vibrant, dynamic and expanding

academic endeavours. The papers are situated within new social-scientific studies ofchildhood and youth and also draw upon a burgeoning interest in mobility (for which

this journal is clearly a cornerstone). This editorial essay provides an introduction to

extant and prospective work at the intersection of these lines of enquiry, and has a

twofold structure. First, we provide a sketch-map of recent social-scientific studies

especially those which have emerged from the academic sub-discipline that has come

to be termed Childrens Geographies which have interrogated some of the manifold

mobilities fundamental to younger peoples lives. We argue, though, that much of this

extant research concerning childrens and young peoples mobilities remains limited

both theoretically and empirically. So, second, we elaborate a number of ways in

which intersections of mobilities and (young) age ought to pose significant questions

for future research and enquiry regarding mobility, childhood and youth, and

perhaps those very terms themselves. In so doing, we provide an introduction to the

papers in this collection which though dealing with diverse mobilities and locales,

and though showcasing various conceptual and methodological inclinations and new

directions share a concern to take the road less travelled by attending to, and

beginning to open out, such challenging, and potentially fruitful, questions.

Social-scientific Studies of Childhood and Childrens Geographies

Over the past decade, children and young people and indeed the contested,

culturally-specific notions of childhood and youth themselves1 have becomeincreasingly important foci for the social sciences, but especially for sociologists,

Mobilities

Vol. 4, No. 1, 110, March 2009

1745-0101 Print/1745-011X Online/09/01000110 # 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/17450100802657939


3/11

anthropologists and human geographers. From the early 1990s, new approaches to

the study of children sought to move beyond psychologists deterministic, positivistic

and medicalised models and ideals of child development (as unpacked by Aitken &

Herman, 1997; James & James, 2004). Social scientists sought a reinvigorated

understanding of childrens lives, drawing upon three key assumptions.

First, that, contra developmental models, there was no such concept as a

universal child. Rather, children were differentiated by social categories and

experiences such as class, gender, relative age, ethnicity and bodily dis/ability (James

et al., 1998).

Second, that, contra traditional concepts of social agency and transitions, children

should not be treated as future adults: adulthood should not be conceived as the end

point in childrens development. Rather, children could empirically, politically,

morally be understood as social agents in their own right, in the here-and-now at a

variety of spatial scales (Holloway & Valentine, 2000; Skelton, 2007). There followed

a drive to support childrens voices and participation in research and, morebroadly, in social processes (Matthews & Limb, 1999).

Third, that the idea and ideal of childhood could be exposed as a social

construction, an artefact of adult in(ter)vention in and of childrens lifeworlds (Aries,

1962). Social scientists broadly agree that childhood is not a natural or biological

given, such that (adult) social expectations for childhood recursively shape the

experiences of children (although see Conroy, 2007, for a critique).

Forming a recent sub-discipline within human geography, childrens geographers

and geographers of young people have played a key role in exploring the spatiality of

childhood and childrens experiences (Matthews & Limb, 1999; McKendrick, 2000;

Holloway & Valentine, 2000). Childrens geographers have interrogated the role ofplace in diversifying childrens and young peoples experiences at a variety of cross-

cutting spatial scales, ages and contexts (Katz, 1993, 2004; Horschelmann &

Schaefer, 2007; Zeilig & Ansell, 2008). They have, furthermore, taken significant

strides forward in exploring ideas about where children should (not) spend their

time, whether in schools (Valentine, 2000; Kraftl, 2006), playgrounds (Woolley,

2008), urban spaces (Valentine, 1997; Collins & Kearns, 2005), rural spaces (Tucker,

2003; Leyshon, 2008), out-of-school care spaces (Smith & Barker, 2001) or other

built environments (see Kraftl et al., 2007). In addition, geographers have explored

how childrens everyday spaces and their identities are co-constitutive (Dwyer, 1999;

Holloway et al., 2000; Beazley, 2003; Hopkins, 2006; Horton & Kraftl, 2006; Ansell

& van Blerk, 2007)

However, despite interest both within the new mobilities paradigm and childrens

geographies, only a relatively small number of articles consider debates regarding

childrens and young peoples mobility. For example, historically, key texts such as

Wards (1978) Child in the City began to raise the issue of how children move around

in public space. Likewise, Hillman et al.s now classic series of empirical studies in

the UK and Germany in 1971 and 1990 (Hillman et al., 1990) brought much-needed

attention to the fact that children do indeed engage in mobility and travel, and, more

significantly identified two key trends in childrens travel which helped to shape

much of the empirical focus of research in childrens mobility over the following

decade. Namely, that childrens independent mobility was in decline (most notablyfor children under the age of 11) and that cars were increasingly used for childrens

2 J. Barker et al.


4/11

travel. This forged the way for a wider number of empirical studies of children and

young peoples travel patterns across Western industralised countries which

replicated Hillmans study and documented similar patterns of shifts in childrens

mobility, including those in countries such as Denmark (Fotel & Thomsen, 2004),

Italy (Rissotto & Tonnucci, 2002), Sweden (Sandqvist, 2002) and New Zealand

(Collins & Kearns, 2001). The then emerging social studies of childhood helped

researchers to apprehend these changes in conceptual terms, analysing the reduction

of childrens mobility in terms of broader adultchild power relations and the

growing use of cars and institutional mechanisms to travel to school (school buses,

walking buses) as examples of broader surveillance (see Kearns & Collins, 2003).

These empirical studies were complemented by a growing body of evidence

considering a broader variety of aspects of children, young people and mobility. The

cultural turn in the social sciences spurred researchers to embrace diversity and

difference. Extending their concern with young peoples identities, childrens

geographers have begun to explore differences in the mobility experiences ofchildren in minority and majority world countries (Punch, 2000; Katz, 2004; van

Blerk, 2005), the role of place at a variety of spatial scales in differentiating childrens

day-to-day patterns of mobility and experiences of migration (van Blerk & Ansell,

2006), and the increasing spatial restriction of children in Western contexts (Pain,

2003, 2006). Research undertaken in different countries in Africa has been

particularly important in expanding conceptualisations of children and mobility.

As well as engaging in personal mobility, children in developing countries also often

play a significant role in carrying and moving goods, food and water (Porter, 2002),

questioning Western assumptions that debates about childrens mobility relate solely

to personal travel. In the context of India, Lolichen et al. (2006) used childrensindividual transport profiles as one route to engendering childrens participation in

research about mobilities and resource availability in rural areas. They argue that

children were not only empowered by learning new skills directly related to their

personal mobilities; they also gained confidence in more sophisticated skills such as

information management and communication. Elsewhere, Gough & Franch (2005)

examine the relationship between young peoples socio-spatial mobility and

corresponding social exclusions (and inclusions) in low- to middle-income areas of

Recife, Brazil.

An increasingly nuanced mapping of the diversity of childrens mobility has also

been accomplished through other work which has explored differences at other

spatial scales. Place is also significant as childrens spatial mobility is influenced by

location, including the social and physical characteristics of the neighbourhood

(Valentine, 1997; Tranter & Pawson, 2001; Ross, 2002). Although powerful sets of

ideological and symbolic representations construct rural childhoods as growing up in

a natural environment with unlimited access to the countryside (Philo, 1992; Jones,

2000; Tucker & Matthews, 2001), childrens experiences often contrast sharply,

indicating that the countryside is increasingly inaccessible to them, and many rural

children often have less independent spatial mobility than their urban counterparts

(Matthews et al., 2000a; Kloep et al., 2003).

Research in Western industrialised countries has highlighted that children from

lower social class families are less likely to have space to play at home, and are oftenmore likely to spend time unsupervised outdoors (Matthews, 1992). Conversely,

Introduction: New Directions in Childrens and Young Peoples Mobility 3


5/11

affluent children often experience very different childhoods, living in more wealthy

localities, and participating in more institutionalised and commodified leisure

activities (Frnes et al., 2000; Smith & Barker, 2001). Children from higher social

class families often have less independent spatial mobility, with higher levels of adult-

escorted spatial mobility although such children often succeed in subverting adult-

imposed rules (Jones & Bradshaw, 2000; Tranter & Pawson, 2001; Barker, 2003;

Mackett et al., 2004).

Gender has also been shown to be a significant category differentiating the

mobility experiences of children and young people. Until recently, in the UK, boys

were seen to have greater levels of independent spatial mobility than girls (Valentine,

1996; Matthews et al., 2000b), although more recent research has found no

significant gendered differences in childrens spatial mobility, as both boys and girls

are increasingly escorted in the UK until the transition to secondary school (Jones &

Bradshaw, 2000; Ross, 2002; Thomson & Philo, 2004). Research has also explored

gendered mobility patterns in other parts of the world, including showing how girls

and boys mobility are influenced by differing household and economic responsi-

bilities (Punch, 2000; Porter, 2002).

Social-scientific approaches principally in the guise of childrens geographies

represent the predominant theoretical lens through which much of this important

work about childrens mobilities has been viewed. More recently, a small but

growing number of authors have drawn upon the new mobilities paradigm to

consider and analyse childrens mobility. For example, Fotel & Thompson (2004)

and Laurier et al. (2008) have begun to consider how broader theoretical debates

regarding automobility can be applied to children. However, that only one paper

from the first three volumes of Mobilities (Laurier et al., 2008) specifically considerschildren and young people suggests that childrens mobility has not been

mainstreamed into the new mobilities paradigm.

Nevertheless, the above review indicates that research on childrens and young

peoples mobilities is a vibrant, burgeoning interest. Hence it was timely that at the

international New Directions in Childrens Geographies conference, held at the

University of Northampton in September 2006, a number of papers considered

different aspects of childrens mobility. This special issue presents a selection of those

papers in an attempt to consolidate and develop research on childrens and young

peoples mobilities and to make this research available to new audiences.

Mobile Childhoods, Young Peoples Mobilities: the Papers in this Special Issue

As a whole, this collection of papers interrogates diverse aspects of childrens and

young peoples mobility, at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Taking a

specifically geographical approach to childrens mobility, the authors explore

international variations in young peoples everyday mobilities, making sense of

contemporary trends in the UK, Palestine, Germany, South Africa and Denmark.

The papers consider childrens experiences of contemporary everyday mobility

spaces, such as cars, homes and public spaces. The papers also consider how young

people of different ages experience and (to varying degrees) dictate their mobilities from young children in car seats to students in Palestine. In so doing they extend

4 J. Barker et al.


6/11

theoretical, methodological and especially empirical discussions regarding childrens

mobilities. In previewing the papers, we want to suggest that amongst much else

besides they open out three pertinent lines of enquiry that hinge upon the

relationship between mobility and (young) age.

First, all of the papers reflect upon the co-implication of age and mobility. This

observation renders age more than simply a social structure or factor in the

production of mobilities (Horton & Kraftl, 2008, p. 285). Rather, age (young age)

and mobility recursively produce one another in the course of young peoples

everyday lives. Thus the papers in this issue question and to some extent overcome a

still-unresolved tension between structure and agency in sociological accounts of

both childhood and age (Hockey & James, 2003; Hunt, 2005). They do so by evoking

and comparing mobilities of two different, related registers. On the one hand, they

uncover the literal, material movements that characterise childrens and young

peoples use of everyday spaces. As John Barker highlights, parents attitudes

towards and practices around their offspring in cars enable youngsters to beconfigured as child car passengers profoundly aged subjects whose experiences of

car travel are de-mobilised in particular ways. On the other, they bespeak the

multiple temporal mobilities and immobilities that undergird particular lifecourse

stages (compare Barkers focus on primary school children younger than 12,

Mikkelsens 1013-year-olds, Harkers consideration of twentysomething students).

Critically, those lifecourse stages are themselves dynamic a reminder that the

lifecourse itself is experienced as a shifting set of spatio-temporal mobilities that are

both literal and metaphoric, material and aged (Dodgshon, 2008). Age is not simply

then, a structuring social category that controls childrens (im)mobilities (nor is the

reverse true). Rather, age and mobility are constantly produced in and through theexperiential plane(s) of everyday life. The papers in this issue critically interrogate

concepts like independent mobility (Miguel Mikkelsen & Pia Christensen) and

public worlds (Sue Milne) precisely through multiple meanings of being a child and

growing up. Furthermore, Christopher Harkers paper ably demonstrates how the

lives of students in Palestine are striated by multiple material and figurative

(im)mobilities whose rigidity may nevertheless be escaped by recourse to specific

lifecourse opportunities made available by their educated-and-aged (in this case

young adult) identities. Similarly, Matthew Benwells paper articulates how

historically enduring social relations and ideologies (such as apartheid) operate

and are evoked at particular instances to complicate the explanatory power of age in

terms of childrens mobility. Thus, it is our hope that the following set of papers

should prompt renewed and broader reflection upon the importance of multiple,

complex, dynamic co-implications of (younger) age and mobility in other contexts:

perhaps in relation to broader conceptualisations of urbanity and auto/mobility

(Latham & McCormack, 2004; Featherstone et al., 2005), mobile materialities and

popular culture (Lash & Lury, 2007), or mobility and identity (Morley, 2000).

Second, many of the papers demonstrate that an attention to mobility should

refine social-scientific understandings of discourses around childhood and youth.

As Ruddick (2003) and Katz (2008) suggest, discourses around youth are becoming

increasingly globalised and globally pernicious. Like Miles (2000), Ruddick (2003)

suggests that notions of youthfulness are increasingly characteristic of Westernconsumer cultures and lifestyles for all ages. As the boundaries between young and



7/11

old are purportedly becoming more blurred (Valentine, 2003), so the figure of

youth gains ideological, aesthetic and political-economic pre-eminence. Ruddick

(2003) suggests youth is a key but often hidden tool for neo-liberal global capital,

exemplified by individualistic, self-reflexive projections of identity (Giddens, 1991;

Beck, 1992). There is, then, a key duality at play, wherein the self-reflexive and

flexible society (and identity) is also a youthful one. Ruddick highlights that the

resources required in order to enact such flexible, youthful lifestyles are of course

unevenly distributed. Critically, this duality (flexibility/youthfulness) also intimates

multiple mobilities which remain under-theorised. Put simply: flexible, youthful

identities privilege certain kinds of mobilities, encompassed by opportunities as

diverse as international travel, global communication, educational status and

personal financial power (compare Horschelmann & Schaefer, 2007). These

identities and opportunities may reflect the global ideal of youth: yet the experience

of (and beyond) this ideal is often very different.

The papers in this special issue therefore provide empirically-grounded theorisa-tions of the multiple, contextualised mobilities that both enliven and cross-cut the

ideal mobilities narrated by global discourses of youth. Situated in South Africa,

Matthew Benwells paper not only draws upon a non-Western, majority world

context, but presents a picture of childrens mobilities that retains an ambivalent

relationship with global discourses around youth. Whilst children growing up in

post-apartheid South Africa might in theory be subject to global processes of youth

identification, childrens experiences of their local neighbourhoods are still in part

affected by their differential (i.e., racialised) positioning in respect of apartheid, as

well as by the mobilities of non-human agents such as domestic dogs. Elsewhere,

John Barker highlights how car manufacturers design and market their products bymaking certain assumptions about the families and children who use them. He

highlights how for some families, cars are becoming increasingly commodified

spaces, configured around particular understandings of child safety and (youth-

orientated) family entertainment. Yet other families, who cannot afford such child-

friendly cars, must rely on more traditional technologies and practices in order to

negotiate the car journey. Thus, it is our hope that the following papers will prompt

reflection beyond the specificities of their immediate milieu regarding key

contemporary discursive presences such as childhood, youth and mobility and

the often intricate and powerful ways in which they are co-related.

Third, each paper attends to the multiple modalities of control that surround

childrens mobilities. Social scientists have become increasingly concerned with (and

about) the manipulation of mobilities, performances and emotions by what can

loosely be termed affective technologies and architectures (Connolly, 2002; Thrift,

2004; Adey, 2007, 2008; Kraftl & Adey, 2008). Drawing on Foucault, John Barker

demonstrates how technologies of control are socio-technical achievements: control

is both in-built in car design (such as car seats and child safety locks), whilst parents

embodied interactions with their children may mobilise and/or exceed the given

materiality of car design. In the Danish context, and in distinction from previous

work, Miguel Mikkelsen and Pia Christensen argue that both physical and social

environments were complicit in the patternings of childrens mobilities in outdoor

environments. Traditionally, independent mobility assumes the absence of adults:yet by adopting a critical perspective on this term, Miguel Mikkelsen and Pia

6 J. Barker et al.


8/11

Christensen attend to the multiple other actors (friends, animals) and knowledges

(about gender roles and autonomy) enrolled in the conditions of childrens movement

around outdoor spaces. Both Chris Harker and Matt Benwell highlight how significant

political struggles are inscribed into landscapes such that young peoples mobilities may

be actively and/or tacitly manipulated by people and things populating those

landscapes (such as border guards, barriers, accepted routes, cultural assumptions).

Yet at other times, the significance of such political struggles recedes as young people

negotiate the manifold other constraints/opportunities upon their mobilities.

Christopher Harker reminds us how such conditions may create a micropolitics of

mobility and immobility (cf. Bissell, 2007, 2008; Harrison, 2008) that potentially

impacts most forcefully upon the youngest (or younger) members of society.

Sue Milnes paper is similarly concerned with a micro-politics of everyday life,

attending to the small gestures and practices that constitute young peoples public

encounters with adults (cf. Tucker, 2003; also Laurier & Philo, 2006; Valentine,

2008). Significantly, she does not simply re-iterate the kinds of im/mobilitiesexperienced by young in public space that social scientists have acknowledged for

some years (for instance, around risk). Rather, she demonstrates how encounters

between im/mobile young people and adults are constitutive ofthe inter-generational

relations and age-based categories upon which social (i.e., adult) control of young

people are predicated. She extends her analysis to the ambiguous role of young

people in discourses about community and neighbourhood cohesion. In these

terms as per our first point age and mobility are co-productive of one another, and

of key concerns such as the conviviality of urban public spaces. Thus, it is our hope

that the following papers will prompt renewed reflection again, beyond each

papers own specific concern on the presence and implications of childhood-youth-mobility (however combined) in contemporary processes of spatial (re)production,

control and resistance.

In short, then, we suggest that the following collection should make several key

demands of research and enquiry regarding childhood, youth and mobilities. Put

bluntly: social studies of mobilities must always, already attend to the importance

of age, ageing, and lines of aged difference which are part-and-parcel of so many

mobilities. Conversely as is rapidly becoming the case social studies of childhood

and youth must always, already acknowledge the manifold mobilities which

complexly constitute them. More than this, though, the papers collected in this

special issue offer glimpses of how much more can be learned about children andmobility when the two are considered together, and their commonplace co-

implicatedness is explored. The papers represent careful attempts to develop multiple

understandings of how, when, why and where younger age and mobilities are co-

constitutive, and of much else besides. It is our hope, then, that the papers in this

collection open out further lines of enquiry both along the lines of our three

observations above, and beyond which take understandings of childhood, youth

and mobilities on and elsewhere, along roads less travelled

NOTES

1. Children and young people form a large but difficult to define section of the population, as cultures and

societies create different cultural, political and legal distinctions which demark childhood, youth and



9/11

adulthood. Whilst the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as under the age

of 18, in many Western contexts teenagers see themselves as young people rather than adults. In some

African societies, individuals in their twenties and thirties may be seen as young people if unmarried.

References

Adey, P. (2007) May I have your attention: airport geographies of spectatorship, position and

(im)mobility, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(3), pp. 515536.

Adey, P. (2008) Airports, mobility, and the calculative architecture of affective control, Geoforum, 39(1),

pp. 438451.

Aitken, S. & Herman, S. (1997) Gender, power and crib geography: transitional spaces and potential

places, Gender, Place and Culture, 4, pp. 6388.

Ansell, N. & van Blerk, L. (2007) Doing and belonging: toward a more-than-representational account of

young migrant identities in Lesotho and Malawi, in: R. Panelli, S. Punch & E. Robson (Eds), Global

Perspectives on Rural Childhood and Youth: Young Rural Lives (London: Routledge), pp. 1728.

Aries, P. (1962) Centuries of Childhood (New York: Vintage Press).

Barker, J. (2003) Passengers or political actors? Childrens participation in transport policy and the micropolitical geographies of the family, Space and Polity, 7(2), pp. 135152.

Beazley, H. (2003) The construction and protection of individual and collective identities by street children

and youth in Indonesia, Children, Youth and Environments, 13, unpaginated.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage).

Bissell, D. (2007) Animating suspension: waiting for mobilities, Mobilities, 2(2), pp. 277298.

Bissell, D. (2008) Comfortable bodies: sedentary affects, Environment and Planning A, 40, pp. 16971712.

Collins, D. & Kearns, R. (2001) The safe journeys of an enterprising school: negotiating landscapes of

opportunity and risk, Health and Place, 7(4), pp. 293306.

Collins, D. & Kearns, R. (2005) Geographies of inequality: child pedestrian injury and walking school

buses in Auckland, New Zealand, Social Science and Medicine, 60(1), pp. 6169.

Connolly, W. (2002) Neuropolitics (MinnesotaMN: University of Minnesota Press).

Conroy, J. (2007) Caught in the middle: Arendt, childhood and responsibility. Working paper, Faculty ofEducation, University of Glasgow, available from author.

Dodgshon, R. (2008) Geographys place in time, Geografiska Annaler, 90B(1), pp. 115.

Dwyer, C. (1999) Contradictions of community: questions of identity for young British Muslim women,

Environment and Planning A, 31(1), pp. 5368.

Featherstone, M., Thrift, N. & Urry, J. (2005) Automobilities (London: Sage).

Fotel, T. & Thomsen, T. (2004) The surveillance of childrens mobility, Surveillance and Society, 1(4), pp.

535554.

Frnes, I., Jenks, C., Qvortrup, J., Rizzini, I. & Thorne, B. (2000) Editorial: childrens places and spaces in

the world, Childhood, 7(1), pp. 59.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge:

Polity Press).

Gough, K. & Franch, M. (2005) Spaces of the street: socio-spatial mobility and exclusion of youth inRecife, Childrens Geographies, 3(2), pp. 149166.

Harrison, P. (2008) Corporeal remains: vulnerability, proximity, and living on after the end of the world,

Environment and Planning A, 40(2), pp. 423445.

Hillman, M., Adams, J. & Whitelegg, J. (1990) One False Move: A Study of Childrens Independent

Mobility (London: Policy Studies Institute).

Hockey, J. & James, A. (2003) Social Identities Across the Lifecourse (New York: Palgrave).

Horschelmann, K. & Schaefer, N. (2007) Berlin is not a foreign country, stupid! Growing up global in

Eastern Germany, Environment and Planning A, 39(8), pp. 18551872.

Holloway, S. & Valentine, G. (2000) Childrens geographies and the new social studies of childhood, in: S.

Holloway & G. Valentine (Eds), Childrens Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning (London:

Routledge), pp. 128.

Holloway, S., Valentine, G. & Bingham, N. (2000) Institutionalising technologies: masculinities,

femininities and the heterosexual economy of the IT classroom, Environment and Planning A,

32(3), pp. 617633.

8 J. Barker et al.


10/11

Hopkins, P. (2006) Youthful Muslim masculinities: gender and generational relations, Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers, 31(3), pp. 337352.

Horton, J. & Kraftl, P. (2006) Not just growing up, but going on: childrens geographies as becomings;

materials, spacings, bodies, situations, Childrens Geographies, 4(3), pp. 259276.

Horton, J. & Kraftl, P. (2008) Reflections on geographies of age, Area, 40(2), pp. 284288.Hunt, S. (2005) The Lifecourse: A Sociological Introduction (London: Palgrave).

James, A. & James, A. (2004) Constructing Childhood (London: Palgrave).

James, A., Jenks, C. & Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Jones, O. (2000) Melting geography: purity, disorder, childhood and space, in: S. Holloway & G.

Valentine (Eds), Childrens Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning (London: Routledge), pp. 2947.

Jones, P. & Bradshaw, R. (2000) The Family and the School Run: What Would Make a Real Difference?

(Basingstoke: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research).

Katz, C. (1993) Growing girls/closing circles: limits on the spaces of knowing in rural Sudan and US cities,

in: C. Katz & J. Monk (Eds), Full Circles: Geographies of Women over the Lifecourse, pp. 88106

(London: Routledge).

Katz, C. (2004) Growing Up Global: Economic Restructuring and Childrens Everyday Lives (Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press).

Katz, C. (2008) Cultural Geographies lecture: childhood as spectacle: relays of anxiety and the

reconfiguration of the child, Cultural Geographies, 15(1), pp. 517.

Kearns, R. & Collins, D. (2003) Crossing roads, crossing boundaries: autonomy, authority and risk in a

child pedestrian safety initiative, Space and Polity, 7(2), pp. 193212.

Kloep, M., Hendry, L., Glendinning, A., Ingebrigtsen, J. & Espnes, A. (2003) Peripheral visions? A cross

cultural study of rural youths views on migration, Childrens Geographies, 1(1), pp. 91109.

Kraftl, P. (2006) Building an idea: the material construction of an ideal childhood, Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers, 31(4), pp. 488504.

Kraftl, P., Horton, J. & Tucker, F. (2007) Special issue of Built Environment Children, Young People

and Built Environments, 33(4).

Kraftl, P. & Adey, P. (2008) Architecture/affect/inhabitation: geographies of being-in buildings, Annals of

the Association of American Geographers, 98(1), pp. 213231.

Lash, S. & Lury, C. (2007) Global Culture Industry (Cambridge: Polity Press).Latham, A. & McCormack, D. (2004) Moving cities: rethinking the materialities of urban geographies,

Progress in Human Geography, 28(6), pp. 701724.

Laurier, E. & Philo, C. (2006) Cold shoulders and napkins handed: gestures of responsibility, Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, pp. 193208.

Laurier, E., Lorimer, H., Brown, B., Jones, O., Juhlin, O., Noble, A., Perry, M., Pica, D., Sormani, P.,

Strebel, I., Swan, L., Taylor, A., Watts, L. & Weilenmann, A. (2008) Driving and passengering:

notes on the ordinary organization of car travel, Mobilities, 3(1), pp. 123.

Leyshon, M. (2008) The betweeness of being a rural youth: inclusive and exclusive lifestyles, Social and

Cultural Geography, 9(1), pp. 126.

Lolichen, P., Shenoy, J., Shetty, A., Nash, C. & Venkatesh, M. (2006) Children in the drivers seat,

Childrens Geographies, 4(3), pp. 347357.

Mackett, R., Lucas, L., Paskins, J. & Turbin, J. (2004) Reducing Childrens Car Use: the Health andPotential Car Dependency Impacts, Final report to EPSRC.

Matthews, H. (1992) Making Sense of Place: Childrens Understandings of Large-scale Environments

(Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf).

Matthews, H. & Limb, M. (1999) Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect,

Progress in Human Geography, 23(1), pp. 6190.

Matthews, H., Taylor, M., Sherwood, K., Tucker, F. & Limb, M. (2000a) Growing up in the countryside:

children and the rural idyll, Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), pp. 141153.

Matthews, H., Taylor, M., Percy-Smith, B. & Limb, M. (2000b) The unacceptable flaneur: the shopping

mall as a teenage handout, Childhood, 7(3), pp. 279294.

McKendrick, J. (2000) The geography of children: an annotated bibliography, Childhood, 7(3), pp.

359387.

Miles, S. (2000) Youth Lifestyles in a Changing World (Milton Keynes: OUP).

Morley, D. (2000) Home Territories: Media, Mobility and Identity (London: Routledge).

Pain, R. (2003) Youth, age and the representation of fear, Capital and Class, 60, pp. 151171.



11/11

Pain, R. (2006) Paranoid parenting? Rematerializing risk and fear for children, Social and Cultural

Geography, 7(2), pp. 221243.

Philo, C. (1992) Neglected rural geographies: a review, Journal of Rural Studies, 8(2), pp. 193207.

Porter, G. (2002) Living in a walking world: rural mobility and social equity issues in Sub-Saharan Africa,

World Development, 30(2), pp. 285300.

Punch, S. (2000) Childrens strategies for creating playspaces: negotiating independence in rural Bolivia,

in: S. Holloway & G. Valentine (Eds), Childrens Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning, pp. 4862

(London: Routledge).

Rissotto, A. & Tonucci, F. (2002) Freedom of movement and environmental knowledge in elementary

school children, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(12), pp. 6577.

Ross, N. (2002) Making space: childrens social and environmental geographies, unpublished PhD thesis,

University of Dundee.

Ruddick, S. (2003) The politics of aging: globalization and the restructuring of youth and childhood,

Antipode, 35(2), pp. 334362.

Sandqvist, K. (2002) How does a family car matter? Leisure, travel and attitudes of adolescents in inner

city Stockholm, World Transport Policy and Practice, 8(1), pp. 1118.

Skelton, T. (2007) Children, young people, UNICEF and participation, Childrens Geographies, 5(1), pp.

165181.Smith, F. & Barker, J. (2001) Commodifying the countryside: the impact of out-of-school care on rural

landscapes of childrens play, Area, 33(2), pp. 169179.

Thomson, J. & Philo, C. (2004) Playful spaces? A social geography of childrens play in Livingston,

Scotland, Childrens Geographies, 2(1), pp. 111130.

Thrift, N. (2004) Intensities of feeling: towards a spatial politics of affect, Geografiska Annaler Series B, 86,

pp. 5778.

Tranter, P. & Pawson, E. (2001) Childrens access to local environments: a case study of Christchurch,

New Zealand, Local Environment, 6(1), pp. 2748.

Tucker, F. (2003) Sameness or difference? Exploring girls use of recreational spaces, Childrens

Geographies, 1(1), pp. 111124.

Tucker, F. & Matthews, H. (2001) They dont like girls hanging around there: conflicts over recreational

space in rural Northamptonshire, Area, 33(2), pp. 161168.Valentine, G. (1996) Children should be seen and not heard: the production and transgression of adults

public space, Urban Geography, 17(2), pp. 205220.

Valentine, G. (1997) Oh yes I can Oh no you cant: Children and parents understandings of kids

competence to negotiate public space safely, Antipode, 29(1), pp. 6589.

Valentine, G. (2000) Exploring children and young peoples narratives of identity, Geoforum, 31, pp.

257267.

Valentine, G. (2003) Boundary crossings: transitions from childhood to adulthood, Childrens


Valentine, G. (2008) Living with difference: reflections on geographies of the encounter, Progress in

Human Geography, 32(3), pp. 323337.

van Blerk, L. (2005) Negotiating spatial identities: mobile perspectives on street life in Uganda, Childrens


van Blerk, L. & Ansell, N. (2006) Childrens experiences of migration: moving in the wake of AIDS in

southern Africa, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(3), pp. 449471.

Ward, C. (1978) The Child in the City (London: The Architectural Press).

Woolley, H. (2008) Watch this space! Designing for childrens play in public open spaces, Geography

Compass, 2(2), pp. 495512.

Zeilig, L. & Ansell, N. (2008) Spaces and scales of African student activism: Senegalese and Zimbabwean

university students at the intersection of campus, nation and globe, Antipode, 40(1), pp. 3154.

10 J. Barker et al.

Documents

Children Young People Mobilities