10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0802.11

Elucidating the role of child labor in the concept of child-friendly cities

PDF
  • Milad Bahalgardi1,
  • Hadi Sarvari*1,
  • Fatemeh Mohammadniay Gharaei1,
  • Fateme Sadrnabavi2,
  1. Department of urbanism, Ma.c, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.
  2. Department of social sciences, Islamic Azad University Ma.c, Mashhad, Iran.

Received: 2024-07-01

Revised: 2024-10-04

Accepted: 2024-10-20

Published in Issue 2025-06-01

Copyright (c) 2025 Milad Bahalgardi, Hadi Sarvari, Fatemeh Mohammadniay Gharaei, Fateme Sadrnabavi (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Bahalgardi, M., Sarvari, H., Mohammadniay Gharaei, F., & Sadrnabavi, F. (2025). Elucidating the role of child labor in the concept of child-friendly cities. Creative City Design, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0802.11
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 140

Abstract

Aims: The concept of child-friendly cities aims to be inclusive of all children, catering to their needs regardless of their socioeconomic-geographic backgrounds. The policies of such cities should uphold the well-being, development, and rights of all children, including Child Labor. In line with this, this research seeks to elucidate the role of Child Labor within the concept of child-friendly cities.

Methodology: This qualitative research employs a meta-synthesis approach, utilizing Sandalowski and Barroso's seven steps for data analysis. Data extraction was conducted from the academic research databases "semanticscholar," "Science Web of," and "Scopos" by combining the two primary keywords of the research: "friendly child cities" and "child labor." A total of 29 articles were retrieved and analyzed using the Max QDA software.

Findings: The research findings demonstrate that the child-friendly city approach positively impacts children's well-being, enhances their quality of life, and reduces the cycles of poverty and inequality. Urban planning for Child Labor should consider their specific needs, such as safe working environments, educational opportunities, and protection from exploitation.

Conclusion: In alignment with the research objective, the findings suggest four new categories for addressing the needs of Child Labor: support, education, income, employment, profession and work, and health. Considering urban planning principles, these categories can be further subcategorized as Urban housing, Kindergarten streets, Work and play neighborhoods, Health streets

Keywords

  • Child,
  • Child-friendly city,
  • Child labor,
  • Urban poverty,
  • Urban space
PDF

References

  1. H. Rezaei, A. Kazemi, S. Farrokhfar, and S. Farrokhfar. “Determination of the Environmental Design Factors Contributing to Children’s Creativity Based on the Concepts of Shahnameh.”. Creative City Design, 2(2):84–90, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/https://journals.iau.ir/article 677384.html.
  2. C. Brown, A. de Lannoy, D. McCracken, T. Gill, M. Grant, H. Wright, and S. Williams. “Special issue: child-friendly cities.”. Cities & Health, 3(1-2):1–7, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2019.1682836.
  3. V. A. Cordero-Vinueza, F. F. Niekerk, and T. T. Van Dijk. “making child-friendly cities: a socio-spatial literature review.”. cities,137:104248, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104248.
  4. E. Riggio. “Child friendly cities: good governance in the best interests of the child.”. Environment and Urbanization, 14(2):45–58,2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1630/095624702101286313.
  5. L. Chawla. “Children’s rights to child-friendly cities.”. Handbook of Children’s Rights, pages 555–571, 2016.
  6. C. N. Mwarari, P. Githui, and M. Mwenje. “Parental involvement in the implementation of competency based curriculum in Kenya: Perceived challenges and opportunities.”. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343263381 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETENCY BASED CURRICULUM IN KENYA PERCEIVED CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES.
  7. C. M. V. De Macedo, M. Gil, and M. R. W. Strelhow. “Urban Mobility and S ubjective Well-Being among Brazilian Children.”. Child Indicators Research, 15(2):467–485, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-021-09888-z.
  8. H. Sarvari. “Participatory Planning; Providing Conceptual Model of Factors Affecting Children’s Participation in Urban Planning.”. Creative City Design, 1(1):37–42, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/https://journals.iau.ir/article 664841.html.
  9. A. Elkhouly. “Child Friendly City as a Participatory approach to enhance sustainable development: Case of Mingdong Community, Ningbo.”. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1113(1):012023, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1113/1/012023.
  10. A. Afshani. “Superstition and Religious Society, Islamic Propaganda Office of Qom Seminary, Isfahan Branch..”. 1391. International Labour Organization. “Global wage report 2012/13: Wages and equitable growth.”. International Labor Office, 2013.URL https://www.ilo.org.
  11. J. T. Okpa, E. Eshiotse, N. O. Ofem, A. Sylvester, and U. S. Andrew. “Child labour and delinquent behaviour in Nigeria: A risk factor analysis.”. policy, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2021-0067.
  12. L. Osment. “Child labour; the effect on child, causes and remedies to the revolving menace.”. 2014. URLhttps://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/4275652.
  13. C. Harper, R. Marcus, and K. Moore. “Enduring poverty and the conditions of childhood: lifecourse and intergenerational poverty transmissions.”. World development, 31(3):535–554, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00010-X.
  14. A. Alias, N. Mohamad nasri, and M. M. Awang. “a tracer study on child participation in child councillor programmes aimed towards development of the child friendly cities initiative.”. children, 10(4):732, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/children10040732.
  15. K. Malone. “Theorizing a child–dog encounter in the slums of La Paz using post-humanistic approaches in order to disrupt universalisms in current ‘child in nature’debates.”. Children’s Geographies, 14(4):390–407, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2015.1077369.
  16. M. Tayefi Nasrabadi, E. H. Garcia, and M. Pourzakarya. “Let children plan neighborhoods for a sustainable future: a sustainable child-friendly city approach.”. Local Environment, 26(2):198–215,2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1884668.
  17. A. Rastegar, M. Irani, and B. Shojaedingivi. “An investigation into Designing Smart city in Accordance with Designing for Children toward Child-Friendly Smart Cities.”. Int. J. Sci. Res.Manage.(IJSRM), 6:261–275, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i9.sh03.
  18. O. Sapsa ̈ glam and A. Eryılmaz. “ ̆ Building Child-Friendly Cities for Sustainable Child Development: Child-Friendly City Scale-Child Form.”. Sustainability, 16(3):1228, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031228. “Convention on the Rights of the Child.”. 2020. URL https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.
  19. H. Tang and M. R. Abraham. “Effect of computer simulations at the particulate and macroscopic levels on students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter.”. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1):31–38, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021 /acs.jchemed.5b00599.
  20. S. Van der Graaf. “The right to the city in the platform age: Child-friendly city and smart city premises in contention.”. Information, 11(6):285, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/info11060285.
  21. M. Jansson, E. Herbert, A. Zalar, and M. Johansson. “Child-friendly environments-What, how and by whom?.”. Sustainability, 14(8):4852, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084852.
  22. N. L. Chusnida and T. P. Anggriawan. “Dispensation of Marriage in The Perspective of Children’s Rights: Best Interest of The Children.”. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 22(3):295–310, 2022.DOI: https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2022.V22.295-310.
  23. O. P. Supraptiningsih, N. Brasit, and R. Mardiana. “Effects of talent management, leadership style and motivation on employee performance in information technology industries in West Jakarta and West Java, Indonesia.”. Scientific Research Journal, 6(11):20–26, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31364/SCIRJ/V6.I11.2018.P1118578.
  24. S. Supeni, D. E. Nurati, and F. F. Sufa. “Disparity of implementation of regional culture as character education implementation in city worth children.”. GeoEco, 5(1):16, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/ge.v5i1.23926.
  25. S. Clement and G. Waitt. “Pram mobilities: affordances and atmospheres that assemble childhood and motherhood on-the move.”. Children’s geographies, 16(3):252–26, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2018.1432849.
  26. S. Fatimah, R. Hipni, J. Januarsih, and N. Maslani. “Relationship Beetwen Knowladge and Work and Eksklusive Breastfeeding in the Working Area Of Martapura I Health Center.”. JURNAL KEBIDANAN BESTARI, 8(01):21–31, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31964/jkb.v8i01.167.
  27. J. Putra, E. Sari, and M. Akbar. “Policy Evaluation of Child-Friendly Schools in Depok City; Indonesia.”. International E-Journal of Educational Studies, 4(8):138–148, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.693846.
  28. T. Sutiamah, D. Ravena, and E. Yusdiansyah. “Implementation of Local Government Policies in Realizing Child-Friendly Districts to Increase Welfare.”. Journal La Sociale, 3(3):98–110, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37899/journal-la-sociale.v3i3.632.
  29. N. Abhari, A. Shamsadini, and B. Ezatpanah. “Investigating the situation of child-friendly city and its relationship with quality, safety and security indicators of needed children’s uses in Jahrom city.”. Journal of Urban Social Geography, 8(1):153–172, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22103/JUSG.2021.2037.
  30. R. Sattar, R. Lawton, M. Panagioti, and J. Johnson. “Meta-ethnography in healthcare research: a guide to using a meta ethnographic approach for literature synthesis.”. BMC health services research, 21:1–13, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-06049-w.
  31. N. Trammel. “Child Labor.”. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 2021. URL https://link.springer.com/series/15893?srsltid=AfmBOopoaaYuIVc4coNeV0fCMEqSxr9M7ecF5-rVjsLXn6cSMk1P6uw.
  32. A. Ortigoza, A. Braverman, P. Hessel, V. Di Cecco, A. A. Friche, W. Teixeira Caiaffa, and A. V. Diez Roux. “Women’s empowerment and infant mortality in Latin America: evidence from 286 cities.”.Cities & health, 7(1):93–101, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2021.1908794.
  33. O. Thevenon and E. Edmonds. “ ́ Child labour: Causes, consequences and policies to tackle it.”. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, (235), 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/f6883e26-en.
  34. I. Fehr and C. Rijken. “Child labor among Syrian refugees in Turkey.”. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 4:861524, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2022.861524.
  35. E. Van Daalen and K. Hanson. “The ILO’s shifts in child labour policy: regulation and abolition.”. The ILO, 100:133–151, 2019. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004399013 008.
  36. J. Y. Tang, C. H. Chui, V. W. Lou, R. L. Chiu, R. Kwok, M. Tse, and T. Y. Lum. “The contribution of sense of community to the association between age-friendly built environment and health in a high-density city: a cross-sectional study of middle-aged and older adults in Hong Kong.”. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 40 (12):1687–1696, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464821991298.
  37. G. Katsavounidou. “Child, play, and urban space: a historical overview and a holistic paradigm for child-centered urbanism.”.Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 16(4):430–446, 2023. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.2005120.
  38. K. Rashmi and A. Kataria. “Work–life balance: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis.”. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 42(11/12):1028–1065, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-06-2021-0145.
  39. J. R. Guillemot and M. E. Warner. “Age-friendly cities in Latin America: A human ecological framework.”. Geriatrics, 8(3):46,2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics8030046.
  40. H. Mahdinezhad. “Presenting a Theoretical Framework for the Operationalization Process of Convergent City: A Meta- Synthesis Approach.”. Urban Economics, 7(1):53–72, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22108/ue.2023.138953.1268.
  41. L. Achterbergh, A. Pitman, M. Birken, E. Pearce, H. Sno, and S. Johnson. “The experience of loneliness among young people with depression: a qualitative meta-synthesis of the literature.”. BMC psychiatry, 20:1–23, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02818-3.
  42. U. K. Chalwadi, N. Swamy, A. Agarwal, C. H. Gauss, S. B.Greenberg, and K. A. Lyons. “Determining normal values for lower trachea and bronchi size in children by computed tomography (CT).”. Pediatric Pulmonology, 56(9):2940–2948, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2020.201.1 MeetingAbstracts.A2347.
  43. O. R. Herber and J. Barroso. “Lessons learned from applying Sandelowski and Barroso’s approach for synthesising qualitative research.”. Qualitative research, 20(4):414–431, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119862440.
  44. K. Basu and P. H. Van. “The economics of child labor.”. American Economic Review, pages 412–427, 1998. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/116842.
  45. M. Naseri Taheri, S. A. Ebrahimi, H. Damghanian, and A. Zarei.“Designing an Integrated Futures Studies Evaluation Model Using Meta-Synthesis Method.”. Iranian Journal of Futures Studies,5(1):271–303, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30479/jfs.2020.10849.1065.
  46. J. Molaei, M. Bagheri, and B. Gholami. “Meta-analysis of factors affecting human resource productivity in the organization.”. Sci. Quart. NAJA Human Resourc, 11(61):79–102, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351096519 Meta-analysis of factors affecting human resource productivity in the organization.
  47. J. Zargari, M. Kavousi, Ismail. Sabouri, and H. Khosrowshahi. “Explaining the impact of social capital on neighborhood-oriented cultural development: a qualitative analysis using a meta-composite method.”. Arman Shahr Architecture and Urbanism,17(46):157–181, 1403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22034/aaud.2023.391741.2777.
  48. A. Pitsikali, R. Parnell, and L. McIntyre. “The Public Value of Child.”. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-07-2019-0164.
  49. A. Elshater. “What can the urban designer do for children? Normative principles of child–friendly communities for responsive third places.”. Journal of Urban Design, 23(3):432–455, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1343086.
  50. C. Dammert Ana, J. de Hoop, C. Mvukiyehe Eric, and F. Rosati. “Effects of public policy on child labor: Current knowledge, gaps, and implications for program design.”. World development, v110, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.001.
  51. K. Villanueva, H. Badland, B. Giles-Corti, and Sh. Goldfeld. “Using spatial analysis of the Australian Early Development Index to advance our understanding of’neighbourhood effects’ research on child health and development.”. journal of paediatrics & child health, 51(6), 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.12822.
  52. G. Di, S. Yishan, and C. Ruiqi. “environmental affordances and children’s needs: insights from child-friendly community streets in china frontiers of architectural research.”. 12(3):411–422, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2022.11.003.
  53. M. Lobao, P. Sergio, and G. da Silva Rubicleis. “Spillovers Espaciais no desenvolvimento educacional dos municipios da Amazonia Classica Brasileira.”. revista do desenvolvimento regional, 23(2): 290–315, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17058/redes.v23i2.6527.
  54. S. Balagopalan. “Why historicize rights-subjectivities? Children’s rights, compulsory schooling, and the deregulation of child labor in India.”. Childhood childhood, 26(3):304–320, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219856077.
  55. C. Yuanzheng, W. Qiuting, Z. Guixiang, Y. Dang, D. Xuejun, W. Lei, and L. Ming. “Evaluation of the accessibility of children’s spaces at the community scale.”. international journal of geo-information, 13(2):55, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13020055.
  56. H. Szewiola. “Child-friendliness of urban space in the example of Labedy.”. architecture, civil engineering, environment,16(3):31–41,2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acee-2023-0031.
  57. L. Xining. “Why Can Guangdong Province Be Located First in China Regarding the Birth Population and Total GDP?-Analysis Based on Social Structure Change.”. journal of education, humanities and social sciences, 23:462–468, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v23i.12935.
  58. K. Fang, S. Ariff Azizan, and H. Huang. “Gis-based intelligent planning approach of child-friendly pedestrian pathway to promote a child-friendly city.”. scientific reports, 14(1):8139, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58712-5.
  59. M. Arti and S. Ismail. “Affordances of street environment for child-friendly cities during home-school journey in old city zone of makassar. plano madani.”. jurnal perencanaan wilayah dan kota, 5(2):114–124, 2016. URL https://journal.uin-alauddin.ac.id/index.php/planomadani/article/view/1591.
  60. A. F. Darrouzet-Nardi and W. A. Masters. “Urbanization, market development and malnutrition in farm households: evidence from the Demographic and Health Surveys, evidence from the demographic and health surveys.”. food security, 7:521–533, 2015. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0470-9.