Children's farms : where urban and rural converge

(1)

Children’s Farms: Where Urban and

Rural Converge

Master’s Thesis

Photo taken by author on 29 March 2019

Genavie Haraldson

Student Number: 12094668 genaharaldson@gmail.com Thesis Supervisor: Lia Karsten Second Examiner: Ying-Tzu Lin MSc Human Geography

Course Code: 735420023Y

Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam

(2)

Abstract

Urban green space for children has been an important part of cities for decades. There is much debate on issues of accessibility to green spaces in cities especially for children's health and growth. Children’s farms have been created as one way to combat these issues. In the Netherlands, children’s farms are free and open to the public and because of this they are a destination for all ages and cultural backgrounds. Literature on the usage of children’s farms is scarce and majority of it is not available in English. This study aims to contribute to previous literature and give a deeper knowledge of how the farms are used by different groups, not just how they are beneficial. One children’s farm in Amsterdam Zuidoost, Kinderboerderij De

Bijlmerweide, has been chosen to study the usage of the facility. This study is a qualitative study that uses a triangulation of research methods including observations, semi-structured interviews and surveys. Results indicate that children’s farms are an attraction for many families of different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds though how uses the farm is dependent on living proximity. Features that attracted the visitors to the farm are the animals and the extensive playground that the farm has to offer.

(3)

Foreword and Acknowledgements

As someone who was raised on a small farm in the United States, animals and the connection that people have with them, has been a central interest in my life. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to conduct a study on something that is to a great interest of mine and was able to have fun while doing it.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Lia Karsten, who has helped and guided me through the process of conducting this research that finally resulted in my master’s thesis. The timely constructive feedback has helped me to continuously develop and improve this thesis. I enjoyed our time together over this last year and appreciate the input and ideas Lia recommended throughout this process.

I would like to express my gratitude towards the workers and managers at

Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide that made this fieldwork possible. Without their help and kindness this research would not have been possible. I would like to thank all the people that agreed to participate in this research, from those that agreed to be interviewed to those that took time to fill out the survey. I greatly appreciate the time each individual took out of their busy day, no matter how long.

Furthermore I would like to thank my family, especially my parents and grandparents. For it is them who showed me the value of hard work. Lastly, shout out to my best friend who decided to move to Amsterdam with me on a whim. This year was hard but would have been unbearable had we been living on different continents.

(6)

Chapter 1: Introduction

Limited urban green space in cities is an important topic to research as studies have shown that children need to connect with their environment and nature. The availability and access to urban green spaces are important to children for physical and health reasons. Playing in nature

promotes “cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being” for children (Bento & Dias, 2017). Additionally, studies have shown that nature positively influences children’s academic performance (American Institutes for Research, 2005, Rivkin, 1997, and White, 2004, as cited in Strife & Downey, 2009).

As the space needed for parked cars and traffic has increased, the urban space once used for children has diminished. Opportunities for children in an urban setting have become limited, so children are staying inside and kept occupied with activities that can be controlled by parents (Valentine and McKendrick 1997, Karsten 2005, Freeman 2010 and Valentine, 2004 as cited in Karsten, 2015a; Oloumi et al, 2012;Bento & Dias, 2017; Corraliza et al, 2012; Van der Burgt & Gustafson, 2013). Though there is an important connection for children and nature, there remain disparities in the accessibility for many (Dai, 2011).

In recent years, a limited access for children to use green spaces and nature has been recognized. Studies have shown that children with a lower socioeconomic status and many minority groups, experience “less biodiverse spaces” (Freeman et al, 2015). Often urban green spaces are unequally distributed in the city causing families of lower socioeconomic status and cultural backgrounds to have restricted access (Dai, 2011; Tan & Samsudin, 2017; Hoffimann et al, 2017). Lower class families often do not utilize green spaces because of the time

commitment, cost to travel or use, and a lack of knowledge. Many parents do not have the time to take their children to parks or playgrounds, due to their need to work (Karsten & Bouw, 2004, cited in Barbato, 2016; Little, H., 2015). Although parents are aware of the benefits of children playing outside they seem to be reluctant to let their children do so, especially alone. There are several factors that arise when it comes to the parental narrative of raising children two of which are environmental constraints and household background. Parental ideas and children’s

participation in the outdoors is directly linked to these two factors (Barbato, 2016).

Not only are opportunities for children’s outdoor play diminishing, many parents are fearful for their child’s safety. There is a trend towards overprotective parenting, restricting their child’s activities within the neighborhood (Karsten & Bouw, 2004, cited in Barbato, 2016; Little,

(7)

H., 2015). Often, many of the urban green areas closest to their homes are not used because parents have fears for things such as dogs, car traffic and interactions with strangers. Due to this, many parents prefer to keep their children at home or restrict the child’s involvement with urban green spaces (Karsten & Felder 2015; Pinkster & Droogleever Fortuijn 2009; Bento & Dias, 2017; Corraliza et al, 2012).This could lead to a decreasing access children have to green spaces such as private gardens. Urban contexts make it increasingly difficult for the creation and use of green spaces for families and children.

Over the last decade, more families in the Netherlands are deciding to stay in cities rather than move to the suburbs. These families are choosing to stay in the city due to factors such as: commuting times, careers, better schools and other activities (Van der Burgt & Gustafson, 2013; Karsten, 2007; Boterman et al, 2010). As the number of families in cities increases, so do the number of children living in an urban setting. Other factors in addition to the environment such as gender, ethnicity, age and class play an important role in how children use urban space. (Karsten et al., 2001 as cited in Karsten, 2003). Families of lower socioeconomic status and different cultural backgrounds do not always have the resources to use green spaces that are further away, as they often did not grow up cycling or do not have access to a car (Karsten & Felder 2015; Karsten, 2005). Parents have a large influence over their children and control the way and how their children play (McNeishand Roberts, 1995 as cited in Valentine & McKendrick, 1997). To mitigate this problem many communities have created small parks such as pocket parks, children’s farms and urban gardens. Families use these urban green spaces as a way to reconnect their children with the environment (Freeman et al, 2015).

1.1 Research Aim and Research Question

In Amsterdam, one way that parents can foster a connection with nature for their children is with children’s farms. This thesis will study how families of different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds are affected by the presence of children’s farms in Amsterdam. Children’s farms can be a great way for families and children of different backgrounds to enjoy being outdoors and learning about animals. Children’s farms are not only important to children because they are an activity in an urban green space, they also help children to learn about animals and where their food comes from. Children’s farms in the Netherlands are free and open to the public in addition many of the farms encourage schools to bring children on field trips or offer classes at the facility (Piessens, 2013).

(8)

This study will be conducted at Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide, a children’s farm in Bijlmermeer. This neighborhood has been chosen for this research because it has a history of being a neighborhood dominated by a mixed background demographic. It is a diverse

neighborhood with migrant groups from countries such as Suriname, Morocco and Turkey but mainly where class and culture diverge. Scientific literature in this field is quite scarce, so this research will seek to fill some of the minor gaps by answering the central question of: _{How do} families of different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds use children’s farms? This research question is accompanied by three sub-questions of:

1. What demographic uses children’s farms? 2. How do families use the children’s farm?

3. What is the importance of children's farms to different family groups?

Three sub-questions have been added to this research in order to answer the main question of the research. The ultimate aim of this research is to gain a greater knowledge on the uses of urban green spaces among different socioeconomic and cultural groups. With a better

understanding of if and how children’s farms are beneficial to families of different backgrounds, this research can be instrumental to recommendations for neighborhood policies.

In preparation for answering this main research question I will first display a theoretical framework to give some background on the importance of this research as well as touch on previous studies in this area; this will be outlined in chapter two. Chapter three will detail the methods that were chosen for this research, the data collection and who the target group was. In chapter four a brief understanding of the case study Bijlmermeer will be given, along with a section on the history of the neighborhood and the children’s farm Kinderboerderij De

Bijlmerweide. After this, chapters five, six and seven discuss the data collection and findings of this research. Lastly this thesis concludes with an interpretation of the results, limitations to the research and further recommendations.

(9)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

‘Family status emerges as one of the most important mediators of experience.’

- Valentine and McKendrick (1997)

This chapter will outline the theoretical framework used for the research carried out in the Amsterdam neighborhood of Bijlmermeer; colloquially known as Bijlmer. The research seeks to answer how families of different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds are affected by the presence of a children’s farm in Bijlmermeer. This question will be answered by studying one form of urban green space, children’s farms. An ideal urban green space can be enjoyed without the user having to travel long distances from their residence. Urban green spaces are important for all members of the urban community and for this reason it is imperative that they are distributed evenly in the city as well as accessible to all (World Health Organization, 2017).

Children’s farms may be used as a place for children to connect with nature and learn about animals and where the child’s food comes from. Though the term ‘children’s farm’ is a broad subject and difficult to give a precise definition, Vereniging Samenwerkende

KinderBoerderijen Nederland (vSKBN), defines a children’s farm as a farm that is accessible to the public, where different farm animals are kept and is designed to introduce visitors to a variety of farm animals (Vereniging Samenwerkende KinderBoerderijen Nederland, 2019).

The Bijlmermeer neighborhood was chosen for this research because of its history as a neighborhood dominated by a mixed background demographic. The focus of the literature is on the previous research and studies conducted in the Netherlands, however, due to the lack of scientific literature on the subject, it will include literature from studies on children’s connections with nature as well as the importance of outdoor play.

2.1 Children and the City

The way in which children are growing up has changed compared to previous decades. Today the experience of childhood is steadily becoming one that is more urban. According to data collected by the United Nations in 2016, it was estimated that 54.5 percent of the world’s population lived in an urban context. This number is only projected to continue to increase with time (United Nations, 2016). This means that the number of families and children living in an urban setting is likely to grow. UNICEF projects that more than one billion children were living in

(10)

cities and towns in the year 2012. In the same study, it was estimated that the urban population in the Netherlands was approximately 13.8 million people, equaling an urban percentage of 83 (UNICEF, 2012).

There are many reasons for families to continue to live in the city, including commuting times, residential location and social connections. Working parents find that factors such as commuting times are a major draw to continue living in cities after having children in addition their social ties to friends and their neighborhood are too attractive to feel the urge to leave the city. Even though there are several reasons for staying in a city after having children, there are disadvantages such as the urban setting lacking child-friendliness (Karsten, 2007b). Cities are often categorized as unfavorable for children and can be described as an ‘urban jungle’ that caters to adults (Karsten & Felder, 2015; Karsten, 2005). When living in a city, housing is another disadvantage for children.

With more than 54.5 percent of the world’s population living in cities, a large portion reside in high-rise apartment buildings, including young families (Costello, 2005 and Van Vliet, 1983 as cited in Karsten, 2015b). Many young families have begun to prefer apartment living over the usual single-family home and in large global cities the apartment style living is

especially popular (Karsten, 2015b). High rise apartment buildings are synonymous with highly dense cities as they can house more people in a smaller area. Apartment buildings became increasingly popular with countries after the second World War as they were fast and easy to construct for those who had lost their homes.

As cities are growing, they are increasing in density leading to many neighborhoods decreasing their green spaces and an increase in traffic (Bjorklid & Nordstrom, 2007 as cited in Van der Burgt & Gustafson, 2013; Dempsey, 2010 and Yeh & Yuen, 2011 as cited in Karsten, 2015a). Aitken (1994) argues that with the growth of cities and high-rise apartments, space used for independent play by children is diminishing, stating that the quality of life for children is declining along with their geographic skills. Katz (1994;1995) backs this up by stating that space previously reserved for children, such as playgrounds and parks have not been paid enough attention to because of economic restructuring (as cited in Valentine & McKendrick, 1997).

With limited access to good urban green spaces it makes it harder for children to play in the city unsupervised, further decreasing children’s time outdoors (Gaster, 1991, Hillman et al., 1990, Karsten, 2002, van der Spek and Noyon, 1995 as cited in Karsten, 2003;_{Van der Burgt &} Gustafson, 2013). Studies have shown that there is a drastic decrease in children’s outdoor play over generations (Valentine & McHendrick, 1997 as cited in Karsten, 2005). The largest

(11)

decrease has been noticed in the years between 1950 and 1975, when space was lost to cars. The reason for the loss of public space for children is a result of more space needed for parked cars and traffic. Consequently, there are more motor vehicles in Amsterdam than there are children (Karsten, 2005).

2.2 Accessibility

As previously stated, there is a strong need for children to have a connection with nature and their environment for many reasons, though access to urban green spaces is not always available to all. According to Atikur Rahamn and Zhang (2018), 20 percent of green space is needed for a city to be ideal. A study done in the United Kingdom by the Urban Green Spaces Task Force in 2002, stated that no person should reside more than 300 meters from the closest green space and that the green space needed to be at least 2 hectares in size (Dai, 2011). In another study The European Environment Agency (EEA), stated that people should have access to green space no more than a 15-minute walking distance (Schipperijn et al, 2010). Urban green spaces are recognized to have social and environmental benefits for the city, however there is an increased number of studies showing that these benefits are not equally distributed across different groups of socioeconomic and cultural background.

2.2.1 Environmental Constraints and Household Background

Urbanization often results in overcrowded urban environments. Cities that are highly dense have constraints when it comes to competition for space and this can affect children the hardest, as child friendly spaces tend to be neglected (Lynch, 1977 and Ding, 2009 as cited in Shi, 2017). As a way to combat the impacts of the urban setting and the shrinkage of the agriculture sector, children’s farms have been established. They contribute to a greater

connection between residents and “nature, animals and food production” (Piessens, 2013). The group that feels the greatest loss when it comes to animals and their natural environment is children. With the addition of green spaces such as children’s farms in the city, it creates an environment for children to learn and experience farm life (Stam & Riefel, 2011 as cited in Piessens, 2013). The types of animals housed at children’s farms usually consist of horses, cows, pigs, sheep, goats, and chickens as well as a number of others. The organization, Vereniging Samenwerkende Kinderboerderijen Nederland (vSKBN) estimates there are

(12)

approximately 300 children’s farms and animal pastures in the Netherlands, with an estimated 30 million visitors each year (Vereniging Samenwerkende Kinderboerderijen Nederland, 2019).

A lack in urban green space access is closely connected to neighborhoods with higher minority populations as well as households with populations below the poverty line. Many minority families find it difficult to access urban green space because of the distance from their homes to the space or having to deal with heavy traffic. They are not as comfortable cycling in the roadways when there are no bicycle paths, causing them to be discouraged from cycling to parks (Herbst & Herbst, 2006, as cited in Dai, 2011). Karsten and Felder found that for lower class families, fear played a large role in their access to urban spaces. This fear created a lack of knowledge for urban green spaces that were nicer but in locations that were further away and outside of their recognition. New migrant families often do not have the best knowledge of the city in terms of where things are and how to get around in the neighborhood. The lack of knowledge hindered or completely stopped their willingness to explore their environment. Without exploring their neighborhood these families were not able to discover activities that are near them and free such as, children’s farms (Karsten & Felder, 2015).

Many studies show there is a correlation between socioeconomic status and ethnicity with relation to access to parks (Tan & Samsudin, 2017; Dai, 2011). Studies have reported that ethnic minorities have to travel further distances to use urban green spaces and because of this, tend to use them less often (Gobster, 2002 as cited in Dai, 2011). Other studies discovered that there were a limited number of urban green spaces in the areas that housed lower

socioeconomic and cultural groups (Richardson et al, 2010 and Wolch et al, 2005, as cited in Dai, 2011). In a study conducted by Dai (2011), it was found that in U.S. cities such as Atlanta, Georgia, African Americans had the least access to urban green spaces when compared to other minority groups such as Hispanics and Asians.

Despite research expanding our knowledge of inequality around race and class in terms of environment, it ignores other groups such as children whom are largely “burdened by, or vulnerable to, environmental inequities” (Downey, 2005a and Shibley & Prosterman, 1998 as cited in Strife & Downey, 2009). Scientific literature regarding the inequalities with access to nature and urban green spaces for children and youth is meager. However, as previous studies have shown, experiences and access vary in relation to race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status (Frumkin, 2005, Hart, 1979, Hood, 2005, Kahn & Friedman, 1995, Platt, 2008, Rideout, 2000, and Wolch, Wilson, & Fehrenback, 2002, as cited in Strife & Downey, 2009; Dai, 2011).

(13)

2.3 The Parental Debate: Nature and ‘Good Childhood’

Today, children’s outdoor play time has lessened, contributing to lifestyles that are far more disconnected from nature and their environment. The connection that children create with nature and their environment is important for promoting “cognitive, physical, social and emotional well-being”, offering children the necessary conditions needed to thrive and learn (Bento & Dias, 2017). Studies have shown that the disconnection that urban children have with their environment is diminishing their physical and mental health (Corraliza et al, 2012). When it comes to children’s daily lives, space plays a large role.

A lack of space for children poses many concerns in terms of their cognitive functioning (Well, 2000 as cited in Corraliza et al, 2012). Space for children to play is important for their learning process and helps children develop their talents and learn how to be creative. Studies have shown that play in outdoor environments may decrease ADHD and increase social and mental skills (Corraliza et al, 2012; Acar, 2014). Children are one vulnerable group in cities and their feelings about growing up in dense cities should be taken into consideration when creating urban green spaces designed for them (Shi, 2017). When urban spaces are designed for children, they are important and useful for children’s learning (Acar, 2014).

There are many hazards that come with living in an urban setting. For this, many parents fear for the safety of their children and instead of risk this safety, they keep their children inside or close to home. Bento and Dias (2017), state that with parents there is a growing culture of fear for accidents that may happen. This affects their attitudes towards allowing their children to play outside and causing children to be kept inside for play and occupied with activities that are structured such as watching television and other non-physical activities. Some of the possible hazards include: interactions with strangers, heavy car traffic and animals, such as dogs

(Valentine and McKendrick 1997, Karsten 2005, Freeman 2010 and Valentine, 2004 as cited in Karsten, 2015a; Oloumi et al, 2012; Bento & Dias, 2017).

As previously stated, children need time to play for physical, mental and creative reasons. However, the extent to which societies agree to this varies among countries and continents. Current western societies suggest that a good childhood is one of an “idyllic, happy time when a child is in a separate category from adults” (Valentine, 1996a as cited in Valentine & McKendrick, 1997). While in this category the child does not have the same responsibilities as when in adulthood. Studies such as Aitken (1994), Evaldsson (1997), and James and Prout

(14)

(1990) have found that there is diversity and a difference in the way that children utilize and experience their urban surroundings_{(as cited in Karsten, 2003). Other factors in addition to} gender, such as ethnicity, age and class play an important role in how children use urban space (Karsten et al., 2001 as cited in Karsten, 2003). Parents are one of the largest influencers when it comes to their child’s playtime and activities as they are the mediators for the child’s

experience (Valentine & McKendrick, 1997).

According to a survey done by the market research company MORI, 91 percent of adults believed that it was very important for children to be able to safely play outdoors but found that 60 percent were very worried about their children playing safely outdoors_{(McNeishand Roberts,} 1995 as cited in Valentine & McKendrick, 1997). The media has created ‘hyper heightened fears’ for parents about the dangers of strangers and living in an urban context. This has caused parents to believe that they need to shelter their children. Valentine (1996a), states that not only are the hyper heightened fears to blame for parents sheltering their children but also the idea that childhood is changing. For many parents the idea of childhood as they know it changing frightens them, so in turn they try to protect their children (Valentine, 1996a as cited in Valentine & McKendrick, 1997).

2.4.1 Socioeconomic and Cultural Influences

Several studies have shown that socioeconomic status is a major factor in determining how children participate in outdoor and out of school activities (Karsten, 1998; Lareau, 2000; as cited in Karsten, 2003). In the research by Valentine (1997), the author found that peer pressure felt by parents in the middle class was a reason that many parents felt the need to helicopter parent their children. These parents felt that other parents in the same class were watching them and because of this they had more pressure to parent in the same way as others. The study found that when these parents were intensely watching their children, the children were not able to learn street skills and therefore not learning skills that would keep them safe. The parents in this study were conflicted between parenting their children to allow for more freedom and being judged by other parents (Valentine, 1997). Lareau (2003) notes that the different types of child raising has more to do with the families class rather than their cultural background does. In this study the author found that the socioeconomic status was far more influential in the way that parents raise their children, especially when it came to education and work life. In her findings, middle class families were far more likely to intervene in their children’s lives when compared to lower class families (as cited in Barbato, 2016).

(15)

To contrast, Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson (2014) state that class is not the only factor for understanding how parents raise their children; cultural backgrounds are just as important (as cited in Barbato, 2016; Karsten, 2003). It is presumed that families of different cultural

backgrounds have different sets of values and beliefs as such families have varying

interpretations on what is beneficial for their children. Perez and Hart (1980), Parkinson (1987), and Valentine (1995) explain in their work that parents of different cultural backgrounds set different boundaries based on the age, gender and their child’s capabilities. These boundaries were also set based on the characteristics of the neighborhood such as the residents and the physical components. Other factors include the time of year such as summer versus winter and what social and cultural values the family holds (as cited in Valentine, 1997). The residents of the neighborhood may influence parents perceptions and cause them to prevent their children from autonomous play, especially if the parents do not trust others in the neighborhood.

2.4 Conclusion

Cities continue to grow without always considering the need for urban green space. This is especially true for children living in an urban context as they have the least availability and access to green spaces. As numerous studies have shown, it is clear that there is an

importance for children to feel a connection with their natural environment (Bento & Dias, 2017; Corraliza et al, 2012; Acar, 2014). However, even when cities create more urban green spaces, they are not always distributed evenly causing disadvantaged groups to lack access (Acar, 2014). Children’s farms are one urban green space that helps children to connect with nature, while fulfilling recreation and education needs. Children’s farms allow children to have direct contact with farm animals and teach them where their food comes from (Piessens, 2013; Elings & Hassink, 2006). Urban green spaces such as children’s farms are a major attraction for family outings because they are safe, free to use and near the visitor’s residence (Karsten & Felder, 2015). In the Netherlands, children’s farms have been created to help lessen the loss of connection to nature. The literature on children’s farms is very scarce and the large gaps in scientific literature is one main reason why studying this topic is so important. The research will seek to lessen the gaps and create a better understanding of how different socioeconomic and minority groups use children’s farms.

(16)

Chapter 3: Methodological Framework

This chapter will start by giving a complete overview of the conceptual framework combined with the sub-questions that were used to answer the main research question. This will be followed by an in-depth look at the operationalization of the concepts that were used for the conceptual framework. After this, the chapter will discuss the system of methods that were chosen for this research and how they determined the design and the strategy of the research. Next how the data was collected in regards to the population and the setting will be explained. This chapter will end with the ethical considerations that were taken into account while conducting this research.

3.1 Sub-Questions and Conceptual Framework

In chapter 2 the theoretical framework is laid out to discuss how a number of existing theories on how socioeconomic status and cultural backgrounds are affected by access to urban green space. With regard to green and nature children have been recognized to have the least access. This is especially true for the children that are of a lower socioeconomic status and/or cultural background (Freeman et al, 2015) as green spaces are often unevenly distributed based on these factors (Dai, 2011; Tan & Samsudin, 2017; Hoffimann et al, 2017). Children’s farms are a way that families from lower socioeconomic status and cultural backgrounds can reconnect their children with nature for free. The main research question asks how the families of different backgrounds use children’s farms in the Netherlands. To answer this question, three sub-questions have been used:

● Sub-question 1: What demographic uses children’s farms? ● Sub-question 2: How do families use the children’s farm?

● Sub-question 3: What is the importance of children's farms to different family groups? Each of the sub-questions for this research will be answered in subsequent chapters starting with sub-question one in chapter five. This next part will explain the sub-questions in more detail.

The purpose of sub-question one is to find out if there is an average user of the

children’s farm and who they are. To answer this question observations were mainly used and supplemented by interviews with visitors and surveys from residents. Observations were made based on ethnicity and clothing as well as age, gender and group size. The interviews were a

(17)

good addition to the observations as they helped to determine what the socioeconomic status of the users were as well as more precise details like exact age, ethnicity and the travel time it took for them to get to the facility. Details on this sub-question will be answered in chapter 5.

After finding out what the demographic was like at Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide, sub-question two was used to determine how the demographic uses the farm. The thought behind this question was that different cultural groups would use the farm in a variety of ways. Observation played a large role in determining the answer to this question. Interviews with adults that visited the children’s farm were also beneficial to this sub-question. While

interviewing the adults they were able to give more insight into what areas of the facility they used the most but also what their favorite part of the facility was. This sub-question will be further examined in chapter 6.

Lastly, sub-question three was used to determine what the importance of visiting the farm was to the visitors or if there was any importance at all. For this, attention was on the parents or other adults that visited the children’s farm with children. Mothers, fathers and grandparents were all interviewed to help answer this question. The perceptions from various cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds helped to determine what the importance of the children’s farm was to the visitors and will be discussed in further detail in chapter 7.

The concepts that were laid out in the theoretical framework of chapter 2 are what have created the conceptual framework below in figure 3.1. The environmental constraints and the household background of the children’s farm users are the two main factors for this research. These two factors then determine what demographic uses the farm, their behavior at the farm and parents perspective on ‘good childhood’ is and how or if a children’s farm plays a role in determining this.

(18)

3.2 Operationalization

In this section the variables used and laid out in the conceptual framework will be better defined. There are two main factors that shape how parents perceive a good childhood for their children; environmental constraints and household background.

3.2.1 Environmental Constraints

As outlined in the theoretical framework of chapter 2, there are fears that parents have in regard to the safety of their children while living in cities. In the literature it suggests that parents feel the need to overprotect their children and because of this they may resort to indoor activities. These studies also note that there are environmental constraints that restrict outdoor play for children. Access is one of the biggest constraints as many do not live near a suitable urban green space. Other constraints include heavy traffic and time needed to get to the green space.

3.2.2 Household Background

The socioeconomic status of the visitors has been used to explain the demographic of the children’s farm users. Previous studies have stated that families of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to visit children’s farms and that middle class families are the largest users. This is because children’s farms are a process of gentrification that makes the city and neighborhood more attractive to the middle class and families (Karsten & Felder, 2015). Naturally making those in the middle class the ones to live closest to the farm. This factor has been studied by using interviews with visitors and surveying nearby residents. In addition to socioeconomic status, the cultural background of visitors has been used to explain the demographic for the users. The cultural background of the visitors explains different choices that the parents and guardians make while at the farm. There are several different cultural groups that use the facility and because of this it is important to recognize the different values and perceptions of these groups. If a cultural group has strong beliefs on children and nature they may visit the farm more often than a family that does not. To determine this, visitors have been interviewed and various residents have been surveyed.

(19)

3.2.3 Demographic, Behavior and Perspective

Demographic, behavior and perspective are all outcomes that are determined by the previous factors. Different socioeconomic and cultural groups have varying motivations to use the farm. These can range from beliefs that the farm is good for their child to just the fact that the farm is located near the visitors home. The behavior in which the visitors use at the farm may also be determined by the socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds of the users. As visitors that are Dutch can read the information panels about the animals to their children whereas other cultural groups may have a harder time with this and it may discourage them. Lastly, how parents perceive a good childhood is determined by various factors. Parents were not only asked about their perception of a good childhood but also the benefits and importance of the farm.

Demographic, behavior and perspective have all been measured through observation, interview and survey to gain a better understanding.

3.3 Research Design and Methods

For this research qualitative methods were the most appropriate to use. This is because the study aims to provide insight into how different family groups use the children’s farm. This method of research gives a better understanding of what happens within the children’s farm and what the actions by the visitors mean. The type of research that will be conducted for this study is exploratory research. This type of research has been chosen because there is very little research on this topic. One of the advantages of using this method is how flexible it is (Bryman, 2012). This study is a cross-sectional study which made it possible to compare different groups at one time such as age, gender, socioeconomic status and cultural background in relation to the use of the children’s farm.

The study uses several techniques including secondary research, informal and formal qualitative research. Reviewing the limited existing literature on the topic gives the basis for the study, but the interviews and survey will answer the sub-questions to fill in some of the gaps. This study has used a triangulation of methods including observation, interviews and a survey to allow for the issue to be studied from different angles and perspectives.

The first method that was employed for this research was structured observation. This was done by using an observation scheme to detail the users behavior and actions while at the farm. This made it easy to determine who and what should be observed as it was impossible to

(20)

observe every visitor their entire time at the farm, so an _{ad libitum}sampling was used to observe what was happening at that specific time (Bryman, 2012). Using an observation scheme was then easy to fill out while at the farm.

The second method that was used was interviewing. Interviews were conducted mainly with visitors of the farm, though two interviews were conducted with workers of the farm. The interviews were all kept open ended so that the respondents were able to answer the questions on their own terms. This also allowed for unusual answers to be given and the questions were not leading as to get a certain answer from the respondent. By using open ended questions it made it easier to explore new areas and topics that were not thought of before the research and to implement these into other interviews. The interviews were kept semi-structured for this same reason as it made it possible for follow up questions and probing.

Surveys were used when studying other residents of the neighborhood. The surveys helped to supplement the observations and interviews. The surveys were kept short and given to residents that lived near the farm. The questions on the survey were related to the residents socioeconomic and cultural background, use of the farm, perceptions of a good childhood and beliefs and importance of nature. By using the surveys it was possible to determine if and why some groups do not use the farm as much as others.

3.4 Setting and Population

As stated at the beginning of this chapter and the two chapters before, this research has taken place in Amsterdam in the Zuidoost neighborhood of Bijlmermeer at the children’s farm

Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide. Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide is located in the Bijlmerweide park to the east of Bijlmermeer and to the south of Diemen. The population that has been studied for this research are the visitors that use the children’s farm as well as the residents that live near it. The choice for this children’s farm to be studied was based on the neighborhood demographics of Bijlmermeer, in that it is a culturally diverse area of Amsterdam. The residents of Bijlmermeer are diverse in that they come from different backgrounds such as Native Dutch, Surinamese, Moroccan and Ghanaian origins. Not only are the residents culturally diverse they are also diverse in their socioeconomic status. In figure 3.2 the maps shows the location of Bijlmermeer and Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide in relation to the rest of Amsterdam.

(21)

Figure 3.2: Location of Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide in relation to Amsterdam

3.5 Data Collection

Observation is one of the primary methods that has been used for this research. Observations were conducted in the months of March and April to complete 30 observation schemes and field notes, shown in figure 3.5. The first observations were conducted at various times and days of the week until it was understood that there are far less visitors during the day versus during the early afternoon. Thereafter, the majority of the observations were conducted in the afternoon to gain a better understanding of who the users of the children’s farm truly are. The facility was visited Tuesday through Sunday, as the farm is not open on Monday. Due to non-ideal weather conditions, some days were not able to be observed. Figure 3.3 below, outlines when the observations that were conducted at Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide.

(22)

(23)

The second method that has been utilized for this research is in person interviews. Interviews were conducted with the visitors of the farm as well as with workers, shown in figure 3.5. The interviews were used because visible behavior at the children’s farm cannot be explained through observation alone. In order to successfully answer the sub-questions of this research, interviews were needed with visitors of different backgrounds. The interviews were

semi-structured as to allow the participant to expand on their ideas as well as to follow up and gain a more in depth understanding.

The first group that was interviewed were workers of the children’s farm. All workers were asked to participate though only two accepted. This was partially due to the majority of the workers not speaking English or feeling comfortable in their speaking skills to participate. The interviews were conducted in person and at the facility for ease and comfort of the participants. In these interviews the workers were asked a series of questions based on what the visitors were like and how they acted. In addition, questions were asked about more specifics of the farm and how it is run.

The second group interviewed were the visitors of the farm. Twenty interviews were conducted with visitors where eleven lasted 30 minutes, five lasted 25 minutes and four interviews were for 20 minutes. The length of the interviews was based on the amount of time the participant had to speak. Often the parents were busy watching and tending to their children so the interviews were shortened. Below in figure 3.4 the descriptive characteristics for the visitors interviewed is outlined. All interviews were recorded via a cell phone recording app. The recordings were then transcribed later that day so that all possible information can be

(24)

Figure 3.4: Visitor interviewee characteristics.

(25)

The third method that has been used in conducting this research is surveys. A survey was created and distributed to fifty residents living in the area surrounding Kinderboerderij De

Bijlmerweide, shown in figure 3.5. The survey was used to get more opinions on the motivations for going to the children’s farm but also why some groups may not utilize the facility. The

questions were written in English and a second version was translated into Dutch so to be more inclusive to those that could not speak or read English. The surveys were passed out to parents that used a small playground in Bijlmermeer-Oost. This area was chosen because it is in the middle of several high-rise apartment buildings and the users had children. As for this research it was important to survey only those with young children. The topics for the survey included: usage of Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide, motivations for going and activities participated in while there. Secondly, a survey was created in Dutch to pass out to eight workers. This was done because there were not many workers that spoke or read English. This survey used the main questions from the worker interview list and has been beneficial to support the interview answers. The total number of participants for each research method used are recorded in figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Research methods used

Data and statistics were gathered from the city of Amsterdam to create maps of the area and tables for the ethnic groups living in Bijlmermeer. The maps and tables with the data used from the OIS can be found in chapter 4. Several maps were created to show the location of the farm and the surrounding neighborhoods to make the study area clear. Tables were created based on the statistics of the Bijlmermeer residents ethnicities. This made it possible to compare the neighborhood ethnicities to those that were observed at the children’s farm.

(26)

3.6 Data Analysis

During observations an observation scheme was used to detail the behaviors that were seen among the visitors of the farm. In addition to the observation schemes, more detailed field notes were written. The observation topics on the scheme such as gender, age and ethnicity were tabulated by using STATA. This made it possible to quickly create tables for these variables later in chapter 5.

All interviews were recorded and later transcribed to create a more detailed outline of each interview, this allowed for direct quotes to be utilized later. The direct quotes were used as starting points for answering each sub-topic. Once the interviews were transcribed, the answers were coded into groups. The codes were grouped based on the interview topics, this helped to answers between the interviews. This made it easy to tabulate the answers in STATA and Microsoft Excel. The surveys distributed to the residents of Bijlmermeer were multiple choice with several open ended questions. The multiple choice questions were easily entered into STATA and tabulated.

3.7 Ethical Considerations

There were four main ethical principles that were used while conducting this study. These were taken from Bryman (2012) and include: “whether there is _{harm to participants}; whether there is a _{lack of informed consent}; whether there is an _{invasion of privacy}; whether _deceptionis

involved.” Harm to participants was measured by physical and stress elements. If the participant was uncomfortable sitting in the sun for the duration of the interview then we would move to the shade. Stress was measured if the participant seemed uncomfortable either with talking to me or because they had to focus more on their child. If this was the case the interview was not as long. All interviewees and those surveyed were told what the study was about, who the

researcher was and how their information would be kept anonymous. For this a sheet with this information was handed out to each participant which gave further information. If the participant felt uncomfortable answering a question, it was skipped and the interview moved on. First, permission was asked to the manager of Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide to conduct the study at the facility. When asking the intentions of the study were clearly outlined as well as how the study will be conducted through observations, interviews and surveys at the farm.

(27)

Chapter 4: Case Study: Bijlmermeer

There are several crucial components to the investigation of how children’s farms are used by different groups, such as motivation for visiting, race/ethnicity and the usage of the play area. To understand how different family groups use the children’s farm, there first needs to be different groups that use the facility. This is why the neighborhood Bijlmermeer was chosen. Bijlmermeer is home to Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide, a children’s farm that is open to the public and offers a variety of educational courses for schools and individuals. These factors are reason to believe that Bijlmermeer is a perfect neighborhood to study how families of different

socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds use children’s farms.

4.1 History of Bijlmermeer

During the mid- 1900s, many European countries faced enormous housing shortages due to factors such as increased migration, insufficient housing quality and the effects of World War II. To combat the lack of housing, high-rise buildings were quickly constructed, though high-rise buildings are not always seen as the most attractive solution. High-rise buildings are often synonymous with “problematic living conditions, deprived areas, isolated location, a poor population, a negative image, social isolation, pollution and crime” (Turkington et al, 2004 and Krantz et al., 1999, as cited in Helleman & Wassenberg, 2004; van de Klundert & Bold, 2014; Wassenberg, 2011). One of the most prominent examples of this type of construction in Amsterdam are the high-rises of Bijlmermeer.

Bijlmermeer is an Amsterdam neighborhood, located in Amsterdam Zuidoost, or Amsterdam South-East. Between 1968 and 1975, high-rises were built in Bijlmermeer to accommodate 13,000 homes in 31 blocks. The goal was to attract middle income families with children, as Amsterdam was already accommodating the low-income groups. The architects won awards for the design and the area was renowned for being a “modern city were the people of today can find the residential environment of tomorrow” (Helleman & Wassenberg, 2004; Wassenberg, 2006 & 2011). Bijlmermeer seemed like a great new and innovative place but had many structural and social flaws (Blair & Hulsbergen, 1993).

Many of the facilities were not able to be finished due to a lack of funds, public

(28)

the middle-class families began to move out of the neighborhood, it transitioned into a “single- class, low-income and unemployed, ethnically diverse and increasingly non-white urban” island (Blair & Hulsbergen, 1993). According to data from Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek (OIS), 70 percent of the residents currently living in the Bijlmermeer area are of Non-Western

background, as shown in figure 4.2 (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018).

In the 1980s, as an attempt to make Bijlmermeer a more welcoming part of Amsterdam, new public facilities were created and the existing facilities were improved. This included a metro line, cinemas and a large shopping center. This changed Bijlmermeer as an isolated location to one of destination. However, even with these changes many of the apartments remained uninhabited. In 1992, a ‘new and radical plan’ was introduced which included the demolition of many high-rises and the creation of medium to low-rise buildings (van de Klundert & Bold, 2014; Wassenberg, 2011). The goal was to create more mixed neighborhoods and foster social mixing, creating better social opportunities for individuals. By introducing mixed housing in neighborhoods, it would create more housing choices rather than just high-rises. The desire was that less people would move out of Bijlmermeer in search of different housing types (Musterd & Andersson, 2005).

4.2 Bijlmermeer Demographics

As stated above, 70 percent of Bijlmermeer residents are of non-Western background which includes migrants from Suriname, Morocco and Turkey but also groups from Ghana, Pakistan and India (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018).

As shown in chapter 3, figure 3.2 the location of Bijlmermeer is a bit disconnected from the rest of Amsterdam. When walking down the streets of Bijlmermeer it is easy to see that the neighborhood is not ‘typical Dutch’ and does not fit in with the rest of Amsterdam. There are several high rise apartment buildings including the ‘honeycomb’ style and several newer mid-rise apartment buildings that are colorfully and artfully decorated. In the east of the

neighborhood there is Bijlmerweide or ‘Bijlmer Meadow’. This is a large park located west of the Gaasp River, North of Gassperpark and flanks the low-rise neighborhoods of Kantershof and Geerdinkhof ( K-buurt and G-buurt), shown below in figure 4.1.

(29)

Figure 4.1: Map of G-buurt and K-buurt, two neighborhoods closest to Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide

The housing that is closest to Bijlmerweide comprises of low-rise apartments and single-family homes. Further from the park and closer to Bijlmer Center there are the high-rise and mid-rise apartments. There are several paths where people cycle, walk dogs and children set up

lemonade stands. The streets in this area are winding and can be very confusing for outsiders. Walking down the streets closest to the park one will see many Dutch children, elderly and families.

The people in this area vary on the location in the neighborhood. Closer to Bijlmerweide there are more Dutch that can be seen walking, cycling and walking their dogs. As you move closer to the center of Bijlmermeer and further from Bijlmerweide the groups diversify. Here there are far less Native white Dutch and more Surinamese, Turkish, Moroccan and Ghanaian. Walking around the shopping center this is the most evident. In the neighborhood closer to the high rise buildings there are less people that can be seen outside doing leisurely activities like what was seen closer to the park. There are a few small playgrounds throughout the

(30)

Figure 4.2: Table of Bijlmermeer ethnicities

Figure 4.2 above shows a breakdown of the ethnicities for the inhabitants that live in

Bijlmer-Centrum (D,F,H) and Bijlmer-Oost (E,G,K). These numbers show that there are far more Surinamese inhabitants than any other group. The second largest group that lives in the

Bijlmermeer area are categorized by OIS as the ‘Other Non-Western’ group. This group consists of ten ethnic groups including Ghana, Pakistan and India, shown in figure 4.3 below. Bijlmer- Oost is the closest neighborhood to Bijlmerweide and Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide. Here there are more Surinamese and Dutch inhabitants than compared to Bijlmer-Centrum.

(31)

When comparing education levels of Bijlmermeer with the rest of Amsterdam, more residents have a low or middle level of education which is not true for the rest of Amsterdam. Figure 4.4 below is from OIS and further breaks down the education levels.

Figure 4.4: Highest completed education level in percentages

4.3 Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide

The farm lies within the Bijlmerweide Park and due to this, the farm has access to a large amount of land. The facility houses many animals including ducks, chickens, geese, peacocks, cows, sheep, donkeys, pigs, sheep and goats. As the farm has access to more land it has allowed for the farm to house the larger animals and more of them. Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide is open to the public and offers a variety of educational courses for schools and individuals. Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide was founded in 1984 and offers an ‘extensive playground’ and canteen in addition to the animals. The farm also has several bee hives and sells the honey in the canteen. In addition to the honey, the canteen sells coffee, various ice creams and fresh eggs harvested from the farm (Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide, n.d.).

There are several activities that the children’s farm offers throughout the year. These activities include an Easter party on Easter Sunday, sheep shearing and a Halloween party. Not only does the farm offer activities, it also offers educational programs. These programs are aimed toward pre-school and primary school children. In 2003, the children’s farm was introduced as a care farm, in addition to its previous amenities. By becoming a care farm, Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide allows adults with intellectual or psychological disabilities, under supervision, to help take care of the animals (Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide, n.d.).

(32)

Figure 4.5: Children’s Farm Amenities

Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide can be reached by car, bicycle or foot, shown in figure 4.5. From outside the facility there are various fences that surround the facility to keep the animals in. There is a moat that surrounds half of the facility that is double fenced and houses various ducks and geese. Once inside the facility, there are several buildings and enclosures near the entrance. Walking further in, there is a small barn that houses four brown and white cows, many black goats and two large pink and black pigs. To the right of the barn is the extensive

playground, along with the stable that houses two donkeys and a chicken coop. The playground consists of a large jungle gym/ slide, three merry go rounds, teeter totter, a swing set, tire swing, a sand area and several bouncy items, which is very popular among the children. On the left side of the barn are four wood picnic tables and beyond the tables is another green fence and gate with a path that leads to multiple animal enclosures. Once past the gate there are more chickens, goats, various birds, and sheep. Throughout the facility are little information panels near the animal enclosures. On these panels are facts about the animals in the pens as well as some other animals that are not housed at the facility. This is great for parents to read to their children or for older children to read themselves and learn more about the animals. These amenities are outlined in figure 4.5 above.

(33)

Chapter 5: Visitor Demographics

In this chapter the results from the case study at Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide in Bijlmermeer are presented by sketching out what the visitor profile looks like. This will be done by exploring the profiles of the visitors regarding ethnicity, age, gender, socioeconomic status and travel time to the facility. The purpose of this chapter is to learn more about the visitors of the children’s farm and will give an answer to the first sub-question of this research: _{What demographic uses} children’s farms? This question will be answered mainly through observation and interviews conducted with visitors.

5.1 Ethnicity

There are currently no official statistics regarding the visitors of Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide in terms of ethnicity, though figures 4.2 and 4.3 in chapter 4, show the neighborhood ethnicity demographics. The qualitative methods of observation, interviews and surveys will not give a precise quantitative representation of the visitors, but it does give an estimation.

By using observation there was an estimated 987 visitors at the children’s farm between March and April. An estimated 63.52 percent of visitors were white Dutch, the ethnic majority, and the second largest ethnic group is one that is a combination of Surinamese and Moroccan at 22.79 percent. Considering these are three of the largest populations in Bijlmermeer (refer to figures 4.2 and 4.3) these statistics make sense. The remaining 13.67 percent comes from other ethnic minority groups of non-Western origin such as Ghana and Turkey. The eight workers that were surveyed noted that there were three main ethnic groups that attend the farm. Dutch was the most common group that the workers noted with it selected eight times, followed by

Moroccan with six and Surinamese with five. For this question of the survey the workers were allowed to select as many answers as they thought fit best.

Figure 5.1 shows the ethnicities of visitors based on the interviews that were conducted at the children’s farm. This is a better exact representation for the ethnicity of the visitors compared to the observations. This is because during observations the ethnicity of the visitors were not able to be exactly known whereas during interviews the participants were asked and gave exact answers. In figure 5.1, eleven of the twenty participants identified as Dutch showing the clear majority. The second group that was interviewed were four Surinamese parents. The

(34)

as the highest is Dutch followed but Surinamese and Moroccan. One parent interviewed, Anita identified herself as both Surinamese and Dutch stating:

“I live here, and my children were born here so we are Dutch also.”

The last two groups interviewed are Moroccan and Ghanaian, both of which two participants were interviewed, as shown in figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Ethnicity of parents interviewed at Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide

As the exact percentages for visitor ethnicity is unknown it is wise to note that these statistics in figure 5.1 may vary depending on the time of year. With different ethnic groups living in the same area there are various holidays and traditions recognized. This can affect who visits and what time of year.

While conducting the survey with residents from Bijlmermeer there were a number of participants that noted they had not been to the children’s farm within the last year. What was surprising from this survey was the number of participants that noted not attending the farm; seventeen of the fifty had not. Out of the fifty residents interviewed, there were fifteen

participants that identified as Surinamese. Ghanaian was the second largest group surveyed with thirteen participants and third was Dutch with nine participants. The largest group that stated they had not been to the farm in the last year were the Ghanaian respondents. This is all shown in figure 5.2 below. The reason that was most selected by this group was that the farm was too far from where the participant currently lives to visit often.

(35)

Figure 5.2: Ethnicities of survey participants

According to the city statistics in figures 4.2 and 4.3, residents from Ghana are one of the largest non-Western minority groups in the Bijlmermeer area though there is a larger

percentage living in the center rather than east. This is clear when walking near the shopping center in Bijlmermeer-centrum as there are far more non-Western residents present.

5.2 Age

While observing Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide, three main age groups were noticed. These three groups can be delineated as children of twelve years and younger, parents and

grandparents. There were several other groups such as teenagers, adults with no children and elders with no children. Even though these groups also frequented the facility but far less than the main three.

Since the children who use the facility are too young to travel on their own, they were almost always accompanied by a parent or grandparent. There were exceptions such as children cycling or walking past with no adult present and entering the farm, such as on April 7th. In these instances, the children acted as though they were doing something wrong and would not stay long. The ages of the children ranged from less than a year old all the way to approximately twelve years old though these ages are approximations and are not exact. Figure 5.3 is a representation of the age groups for children that visit the children’s farm.

(36)

Figure 5.3: Approximate Age for Children at Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide

Figure 5.4 represents the age distribution for the adult visitors at the farm. There were approximately 463 visitors that were over the age of twelve. Of the adults that visited the children’s farm 61.12 percent of them were parents to the children. The second largest group were grandparents at 26.13 percent of the visitors. The other groups were adults and elders, both with no children present and teenagers.

(37)

5.3 Gender

Figure 5.5 shows the gender distribution for all visitors observed. There were approximately 987 visitors total observed of which 573 were females and 404 males.

Figure 5.5: Gender Distribution of Visitors.

Among the 524 children (shown in figure 5.3) that visited the farm there were 53.78 percent female and 46.22 percent male. Among the 463 adults (shown in figure 5.4) that used the facility however, the percentage of males and females are not as close. For parents there were 68.44 percent female and only 31.56 percent male. The third largest group that visited the farm were grandparents with 64.23 percent female and 35.77 percent male. All other groups did not have children present with them when they visited the farm.

5.4 Socioeconomic Status

Figure 5.6 below shows the combined statistics for the social class of surveyed residents and interviewed visitors. In the survey thirty-three participants stated they had visited the farm in the last year. Twenty-two of these residents surveyed, considered themselves to have a low status and eleven believed that had a middle status. Of the twenty visitors that were interviewed ten of them identified as having a middle socioeconomic status and eight identified as low. There were two participants that declined to answer this question. It is important to note that the social class recorded in figure 5.6 represents what the respondent perceived their status to be.

(38)

Figure 5.6: Social class of visitors and residents

Education level is a determining factor when it comes to outdoor play as low education relates to social class. In figure 5.7 out of the fifty residents that were surveyed eleven had high school diplomas and only four had four-year degrees. There were nine participants that had some type of college degree, but it was less than a four year degree. In addition, there were nine other participants that stated their highest level of education was other. This could be because they had not finished high school or had started a college degree but not graduated. To compare, nine of the visitors interviewed stated their highest level of education was high school and six had four-year degrees. Again, there were participants that noted that their education level was other or they declined to answer this question all together.

(39)

5.5 Travel Time

Of the twenty visitors that were interviewed, eight stated they usually cycle to the facility

whereas twelve stated they usually walk. The travel time it took for the interviewees to get to the facility was an average of an 18.25-minute journey. This shows that more visitors walk to the facility than cycle. Figure 5.8 below shows the distribution.

Figure 5.8: Travel Time to Children’s Farm

5.6 Summary

The visitors of Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide are manifold and because of this, it is difficult to summarize the visitors in to a ‘typical’ visitor. The children’s farm attracts visitors mainly within the close proximity to Bijlmermeer, though there are residents from the neighboring city of Diemen that frequent the facility as well; interviews were held with several residents from Diemen. According to the eight workers that were surveyed, the most common type of group that visits the farm is single parent families. This means one parent or grandparent with one or more children.

While observing Kinderboerderij De Bijlmerweide there were many things that were noticed in regard to the visitors. The ethnicity of the visitors were one of the easiest differences to visually see. As stated in section one of this chapter, the majority of visitors are white Dutch or Surinamese. This most likely has to do with the immediate neighborhood consisting of single family and low-rise housing as well as being dominated by Dutch and Surinamese residents. It was found that a large percentage of residents surveyed had not been to the farm in the last year with the majority of them from Ghana. Five of these residents noted that the distance from where they lived to the farm was just too far for them to walk. As stated in chapter 2, studies

Children's farms : where urban and rural converge