Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Children’s conceptions of spatial appropriation : an aspect of social knowledge Svendsen, Ann Christine 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 S84.pdf [ 6.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095466.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095466-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095466-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095466-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095466-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095466-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095466-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095466-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095466.ris

Full Text

CHILDREN'S CONCEPTIONS OF SPATIAL APPROPRIATION: AN ASPECT OF SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE by ANN CHRISTINE SVENDSEN B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF I & W W « § T ~ N A " Y STUDIES . in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Studies/ Sociology and Community and Regional Planning) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January 1981 (c) Ann Christine Svendsen, 1981 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i cat ion of th is thes is fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s exploratory study was 1) to i d e n t i f y and i l l u s t r a t e a number of components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by c h i l d r e n to comprehend and act according to s o c i a l rules and conventions governing the appropriation of space, and 2) to develop and test a model for examining q u a l i t a t i v e differences i n such a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , within and between various age groups. The model was based on two propositions: f i r s t that knowledge of the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space are two components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and second that such a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l become more abstract, d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , and integrated with age. In the f i n a l study f i f t e e n c h i l d r e n were interviewed, including ten s i x year olds and f i v e twelve and th i r t e e n year olds. The interview focussed on the children's awareness of and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for s o c i a l rules and con-ventions governing access to and use of private, semi-private, and public spaces i n the neighborhood, school, and home. The model was succ e s s f u l l y used i n the analysis of the children's res-ponses. Various aspects of t h e i r conceptions of the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space were explored. Their responses were also c l a s s i f i e d according to four levels posited i n the model. It was found that most of the s i x year olds had an un d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and concrete scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . They were aware of cont e x t - s p e c i f i c rules and conventions. When asked to explain or j u s t i f y the rules they t y p i c a l l y r e f e r r e d to the physical or s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the se t t i n g . By twelve or th i r t e e n years of age the chil d r e n had developed a more abstract, d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , and integrated scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . They often referred to concepts such as power or ownership to explain or j u s t i f y i i i the a b i l i t y of various i n d i v i d u a l s to appropriate space. Thus, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that an understanding of s p a t i a l appropriation involves not simply i n t e r n a l i z i n g a 'catalogue' of s o c i a l rules and conventions, but rather constructing a more complex scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of knowledge of 1) the s o c i a l structure, 2) the s o c i a l organization of space, and 3) the r e l a t i o n s between them. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Page 1.1 Statement of the Problem 1 1.2 Background to the Problem 3 1.2.1 S p a t i a l Behavior Research 3 1.2.2 S o c i a l Cognition Research 4 1.3 The Theoretical Framework 5 1.4 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms and Concepts 6 1.5 The Analytic Framework: Its Development and Limitations 7 1.5.1 The Model 7 1.5.2 The Development of the Model 9 1.6 Limitations 12 1.7 Rationale 1 3 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 S p a t i a l Behavior Research 15 2.3 Symbolic Interactionism: a Theoretical Framework 20 2.4 Developmental Psychology L i t e r a t u r e 22 2.4.1 Soc i a l Cognition Research 25! 2.5 Related Studies 28 2.5.1 Children's Use and Conceptions of Space 28 2.5.2 Impact of the Socio-Cultural Context 33 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3.1 The Analytic Framework 37 3.2 The Model of S p a t i a l Appropriation 38 3.3 The Model of Children's Conceptions of S p a t i a l Appropriation 40 3.3.1 Components of a Scheme of Interpretation 40 3.3.2 Levels of Understand ing 41 3.4 The Interview 45 3.4.1 Respondents 45 3.4.2 Rationale for Age Groups Selected 46 V. 3.4.3 Recruitment 47 3.4.4 Format of Interviews 47 3.5 The Interview Schedule 49 3.6 Transcription and E d i t i n g Procedures 50 3.7 Physical C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the False Creek Development 51 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 4.1 Introduction 53 4.2 Components of an Understanding of S p a t i a l Appropriation 54 4.2.1 Conceptions of the S o c i a l Structure 54 i . b e l i e f s about adults and c h i l d r e n 54 i i . the manager 56 i i i . s trategies 57 , i v . s o c i a l construction of authority 59 v. sstrangers 60 v i . b e l i e f s about teachers and students 61 4.2.2 Conceptions of the S o c i a l Organization of Space 64 i . conditions of access 65 i i . s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n and use of space i n 67 conversations i i i . s o c i a l versus a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e f i n i t i o n of 69 space i v . d e f i n i t i o n and use of semi-public space 71 v. location and meaning of boundaries 73 4.3 Levels of Understanding 4.3.1 Introduction 76 4.3.2 Level One I 77 4.3.3 Level Two 78 4.3.4 Level Three 85 4.3.5 Level Four 88 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Components of a Scheme of Interpretation 92 5.2 Levels of Understanding 95 5.3 Implications for Future Research 96 REFERENCES 101 APPENDICES Appendix A - Interview Schedule 108 v i Appendix B - Sample Interview (13 year old) 111 Appendix C - Sample Interview (6 year old) 123 Appendix D - Consent Letter 132 Appendix E - Map of False Creek Development 134 LIST OF TABLES T i t l e Table I - Levels of Understanding Table II - Enclaves by Housing Type and Sponsor Group Table III - Enclaves by Building Type and Landscape Table IV - Levels of Understanding by Age Group v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to express my gratitude to the members of my committee: Dr. Henry Hightower (Chair), Dr. James Duncan, Dr. Gaalen Erikson, and Barbara Williamson, for t h e i r h e l p f u l , thought provoking suggestions and c r i t i c i s m s . I would also l i k e to thank Dr. George Gray, and Dr. Martha Foschi for t h e i r u n f a i l i n g support i n moments of c r i s i s . To my husband, Robert B o u t i l i e r , and my friends who lis t e n e d with patience and understanding, I am also heavily indebted. And, l a s t l y , I o f f e r sincere thanks to the students and s t a f f at False Creek Elementary School. Without t h e i r cooperation t h i s study could not have been done. 1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the Problem Numerous researchers have argued that the act of defining and defending space i s an expression of b i o l o g i c a l or psychological drives (Altman, 1970; Stea, 1970). The e a r l i e s t studies of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y r e f e r r e d to the s p a t i a l behavior of animals i n an attempt to explain why human beings e s t a b l i s h and defend boundaries (Ardrey, 1966; Calhoun, 1962). It was suggested that human beings, l i k e animals, have an innate tendency to defend "home" t e r r i t o r y , e s p e c i a l l y i n conditions of high population density (Galle, Gove and McPherson, 1972; Schmidtt, 1957). A broader spectrum of s p a t i a l behavior research, including studies of personal space, proxemics, and crowding suggests, however, that a narrow psychological or b i o l o g i c a l explanation for t e r r i t o r i a l behavior may be i n -adequate to account for the complexities involved i n the process of s p a t i a l d e f i n i t i o n and c o n t r o l . Such a d e f i n i t i o n does not account, for example, for the demonstrated v a r i a t i o n i n patterns of s p a t i a l behavior across cultures and contexts ( H a l l , 1966; Sommer, 1969; Stokols, 1978), nor does i t give adequate consideration to the process of negotiation which takes place between those who attempt to e s t a b l i s h claims to space and those who encounter those claims. Thus, t e r r i t o r i a l i t y has been reconceptualized for the purposes of t h i s study and a new term " s p a t i a l appropriation" has been used. S p a t i a l approp-r i a t i o n r e f e r s to a multi-dimensional, i n t e r a c t i v e process of s p a t i a l d e f i n i t i o n and co n t r o l involving both those who attempt to e s t a b l i s h claims to space and those who encounter those claims. It i s assumed that t h i s process i s governed by a complex system of s o c i a l rules and conventions, and furthermore that i n order to comprehend and act according to the rules and conventions i n d i v i d u a l s construct a "scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " (Mead, 1944). For the purposes of t h i s study a scheme of int e r p e t a t i o n i s defined as a system of ideas and b e l i e f s about how space i s or should be used. Although previous studies have dealt with adults' conceptions of t h i s system of rules and conventions ( H a l l , 1966;1961; Rappoport, 1972), l i t t l e information i s ava i l a b l e regarding the form or content of a scheme of i n t e r -pretation used by c h i l d r e n . As Baldassare (1978) noted i n h i s recent review of the s p a t i a l behavior l i t e r a t u r e "... studies of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of space use and the development of s p a t i a l meaning and subsequent responses have been la c k i n g " (p.'50). This study addresses t h i s gap i n the l i t e r a t u r e as i t focusses on the content of children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing access to and use of private, semi-private, and public space. It i s an exploratory study which i s aimed f i r s t at i d e n t i f y i n g and i l l u s t r a t i n g several components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by ch i l d r e n to comprehend and act accordin; to rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation, and second at developing and t e s t i n g a framework f o r looking at the q u a l i t a t i v e differences i n such a scheme within and between various age groups. The following research questions were posed: 1. To what extent do chi l d r e n d i s t i n g u i s h between priv a t e , semi-private, and public spaces and the categories of people who can gain access to those spaces? 2. What are t h e i r conceptions of the s o c i a l roles and r e l a t i o n -ships which e x i s t between i n d i v i d u a l s who con t r o l space and those who encounter those claims? 3. What are t h e i r conceptions of the location and meaning of boundaries? , and 4. What types of explanations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s are used by the child r e n to support t h e i r statements i n (1), (2), and (3)? 1.2 Background to the Problem 1.2.1 Sp a t i a l Behavior Research It can be argued that s p a t i a l appropriation i s governed by a highly complex system of s o c i a l rules and conventions. Although the complexity of t h i s system of rules and conventions has not been dealt with e x p l i c i t l y i n the l i t e r a t u r e , a number of studies suggest that s p a t i a l appropriation may be a learned rather than an innate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of human action ( H a l l , 1966; Stokols, 1976). Furthermore, these studies imply that s p a t i a l approp-r i a t i o n i s governed by a large number of rules and conventions that are spe-c i f i c to p a r t i c u l a r cultures and contexts. Studies dealing with 'personal space', 'proxemics', and 'crowding 1, for example, demonstrate that many rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l be-havior vary from one context to another. Edward H a l l (1966), an anthropologist who i s well-known for h i s research on 'proxemics' or interpersonal distancing, claims that i n conversations friends maintain close r interpersonal distances than strangers. He bases t h i s claim on extensive fieldwork, as well as ob-servations and interviews, with a large sample of middle c l a s s , North American adults ( H a l l , 1966). H a l l has also studied c u l t u r a l differences i n proxemic behavior and has found that i n some cultures i t i s appropriate to maintain close r interpersonal distances than i n others ( H a l l , 1961). Thus, although there may be some univers a l features of s p a t i a l behavior (e.g., the notion that there i s a 'proper' distance), the expression of those universals often varies from one context to the next (see also Altman, 1975). Research concerned with 'personal space' indicates that there are also 4. context-specific rules and conventions governing the d e f i n i t i o n and control of s p a t i a l boundaries around the body ( B a l l , 1973; Felipe and Sommer, 1966). Robert Sommer, an environmental psychologist, found in studies conducted in natural settings that the boundaries of an individual's 'personal space' seem to expand or contract depending on the s o c i a l and physical characteris-t i c s of the setting (Sommer, 1969). Crowding studies suggest that responses to r e s t r i c t e d amounts of space, and the resulting close interpersonal distances are related to an individual's perception of the cause of the sp a t i a l r e s t r i c t i o n . Where close interpersonal distance i s anticipated and interpreted as a 'normal' feature of the setting (e.g., at a rock concert) individuals w i l l not react negatively to the high densities, and close interpersonal distances. In other settings, (e.g., i n a l i b r a r y ) , where close interpersonal distance i s usually considered inapprop-r i a t e , an individual i s more l i k e l y to fe e l 'crowded' (Stokols, 1976). 1.2.2 Social Cognition Literature As this study involves children, the developmental psychology l i t e r a t u r e i s relevant i n terms of the influence cognitive development may have on the form or content of a child's conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. Based on Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development (Furth, 1969; Piaget, 1956; Flave11, 1973) studies have been done on the development of different aspects of s o c i a l knowledge including knowledge of s o c i a l rules and conventions, the economic system, and the operation of s o c i a l i n s t i t u -tions such as government and stores (Damon, 1978; Furth, 1977; Jahoda, 1978). These studies which involve North American and European children, suggest that at least i n these cultures children's understanding of society becomes more di f f e r e n t i a t e d , abstract, and principle-governed with age. Furthermore, they indicate that the ch i l d r e n i n i t i a l l y learn s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c rules and conventions, but with age and experience develop more general 'schemes' for understanding s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and events. 1.3 The Theoretical Framework Much of the t e r r i t o r i a l i t y research has been based on a 'stimulus res-ponse' or 'behaviorist' theory of human action (Altman, 1970; Stea, 1970). The focus of these studies has therefore been on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the environmental s t i m u l i and various behavioral responses. It has been argued that a stimulus (e.g., high density) produces a response (e.g., aggressive defense of space). This study, i n contrast, deals with children's conceptions, or t h e i r ideas and b e l i e f s about the rules and conventions which govern the d e f i n i t i o n and use of space. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s concerned with i d e n t i f y i n g and i l l u s t r a t i n g various components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which i s used by c h i l d r e n to comprehend and act according to those rules and conventions. The focus on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s conceptions or interpretations of s o c i a l action i s associated, on a t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , with the writings of George Herbert Mead (1944). Mead argues that individuals do not merely respond to external s t i m u l i , but rather i n t e r p r e t what confronts them and act on the basis of that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . ' Mead also suggests that i n d i v i d u a l s construct 'schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' or systems of ideas and b e l i e f s which allow them to par-t i c i p a t e i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n or 'joint action' (Blumer, 1966). A concern with the q u a l i t a t i v e differences i n children's conceptions across various age levels also r e f l e c t s a ' c o n s t r u c t i v i s t ' theory of s o c i a l development (Piaget, 1972; Furth e t . a l . , 1976; Damon, 1978). A construc-t i v i s t perspective can be contrasted with a s o c i a l learning theory of human development which i s based on the assumption that a c h i l d i s a 'tabula rasa' who acquires s o c i a l knowledge as a r e s u l t of the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of adult norms, values and b e l i e f s (Bandura, 1969). In comparing the two approaches i t can be said that s o c i a l learning theory treats s o c i a l knowledge as the product of immitation and modelling, whereas according to a c o n s t r u c t i v i s t theory s o c i a l knowledge i s gained through the c h i l d ' s active i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and d e f i n i t i o n of s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and events'. Thus, as t h i s study focusses on the q u a l i t a t i v e rather than quantita-t i v e aspects of the c h i l d ' s understanding of s o c i a l rules and conventions i t i s compatible with a c o n s t r u c t i v i s t rather than a s o c i a l learning theory of knowledge. 1.4 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms and Concepts As the issue of children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing the use of space has not been dealt with extensively i n the l i t e r a t u r e i t was necessary to use several concepts from other areas of research. " S p a t i a l appropriation" was used instead of " t e r r i t o r i a l i t y " as i t acknowledges the i n t e r a c t i v e nature of the d e f i n i t i o n and c o n t r o l of space and therefore c a l l s attention to the s o c i a l aspects of s p a t i a l behavior. The term "appropriation" l i t e r a l l y means, "to make one's own, to claim or take to one's s e l f i n exclusion of others as by an exclusive r i g h t ; to set apart f o r or assign to a p a r t i c u l a r purpose" (Webster's Dictionary, 1973). In t h i s study, the term s p a t i a l appropriation refers to an i n t e r a c t i v e process whereby claims to space are established and maintained by an i n d i v i d u a l or group within a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l context. The term 'scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' r e f e r s to a system of ideas and b e l i e f s used by in d i v i d u a l s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the process of s p a t i a l approp-r i a t i o n . G. H. Mead i n i t i a l l y used the term i n a more general sense to 7. re f e r to a system of knowledge which allows in d i v i d u a l s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n s o c i a l action (Blumer, 1966, p. 539). The framework for looking at the q u a l i t a t i v e changes i n a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was developed based on a review of the s p a t i a l behavior and s o c i a l cognition l i t e r a t u r e s . Two components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were i d e n t i f i e d and i l l u s t r a t e d . The f i r s t component i s defined as knowledge  of the s o c i a l structure which consists of b e l i e f s about s o c i a l r o l e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The second component i s defined as knowledge of the s o c i a l  organization of space which consists of ideas and b e l i e f s about the lo c a t i o n and meaning of boundaries def i n i n g p r i v a t e , semi-private and public space. 1.5 The Analytic Framework: i t s Development and Limitations 1.511 The Model A model of children's conceptions of the rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation i s used as a t o o l for exploring the form and content of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by the ch i l d r e n at d i f f e r e n t ages. It i s based on two major propositions. F i r s t , that knowledge of the s o c i a l structure and knowledge of the s o c i a l organization of space are two components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by c h i l d r e n to make sense of rules and con-ventions governing the appropriation of space; and second, that such a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l become more abstract and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d with age. The model consists of four l e v e l s ranging from no awareness of the s o c i a l rules and conventions to a highly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d understanding of the rules and conventions. At the f i r s t l e v e l the c h i l d i s not aware that there are s o c i a l rules and conventions which pr o h i b i t access of c e r t a i n s o c i a l categories of persons to c e r t a i n spaces. The c h i l d simply believes that a l l spaces are equally accessible to a l l people. 8. At the second l e v e l the c h i l d i s aware of the rules and conventions but does not construct an explanation or j u s t i f i c a t i o n for those rules which i s based on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. For example, the c h i l d w i l l d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the " p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e " and other "non p r i v a t e " spaces i n the school. He or she w i l l recognize that students cannot gain access to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e at w i l l . But, the c h i l d ' s explanations for that d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l not con-t a i n any reference to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l roles of the p r i n c i p a l and students and his or her capacity to control access to space. This i s not to say, however, that the c h i l d does not recognize the re-l a t i o n s h i p between membership i n a s o c i a l category and the a b i l i t y to approp-1 r i a t e space, but simply that the c h i l d does not use that understanding to explain or j u s t i f y the rules and conventions. At the t h i r d l e v e l the c h i l d ' s j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for the rules and con-ventions contains an e x p l i c i t , i f concrete and s i m p l i s t i c , reference to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. The c h i l d states, for example, that a l l people can go to the park because i t i s "public", but that only the people who l i v e i n the apartment can use the courtyard. The c h i l d does not use concepts such as ownership, 2 . or a f a c s i m i l i e of ownership such as renting , to j u s t i f y that d i s t i n c t i o n . It i s possible that children at a young age may have developed s o c i a l knowledge that they do not express due to l i m i t e d verbal s k i l l s . 2 Although a j u s t i f i c a t i o n for control over space could include "renting" as opposed to "owning" none of the c h i l d r e n i n the f i n a l study mentioned that p o s s i b i l i t y . Thus, i t should be noted that although the c h i l d r e n were not encouraged to t a l k about renting whereas they were probed about t h e i r conceptions of ownership, t h i s does not r u l e out the r e l e -vance of the concept of renting to the rules and conventions governing the d e f i n i t i o n and use of space i n a North American context. At the fourth l e v e l the c h i l d has developed a more abstract conception of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space and i s aware that c e r t a i n s o c i a l categories of persons have r i g h t s and powers which enable them to l e g i t i m a t e l y e s t a b l i s h and maintain co n t r o l over space. At t h i s l e v e l the c h i l d j u s t i f i e s the rules and conventions by r e f e r r i n g to abstract concepts such as power, status, and ownership. The c h i l d might state, for example, that the p r i n c i p a l can control access to his o f f i c e because he i s the p r i n c i p a l and therefore has more power than the students. It should be noted, however, that i t i s not assumed that there are only four l e v e l s of understanding of rules and conventions governing the approp-r i a t i o n of space. Obviously, a newborn c h i l d has a very l i m i t e d understanding of the s o c i a l structure and v i r t u a l l y no knowledge of the s o c i a l organization of space. Thus, there may be less sophisticated l e v e l s than l e v e l one. On the other hand, i t i s l i k e l y that adults have developed a more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and complex scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n than adolescents have and therefore lev e l s of understanding may extend past l e v e l four. The four levels were used i n t h i s study because they were appropriate to c h i l d r e n between the ages of s i x and twelve, the two age groups i n i t i a l l y selected for i n c l u s i o n i n the study. The s o c i a l cognition l i t e r a t u r e de-monstrated that by s i x years of age most c h i l d r e n have some knowledge of rules and conventions, and that by twelve or t h i r t e e n they have constructed a more abstract and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for making sense of those rules and conventions. 1.5.2 The Development of the Model The model was developed based on a review of the s p a t i a l behavior and s o c i a l cognition l i t e r a t u r e s . It was then modified on the basis of a p i l o t 10. study and tested i n a f i n a l study involving interviews with f i f t e e n c h i l d r e n . The s p a t i a l behavior l i t e r a t u r e was f i r s t reviewed i n order to develop a framework for looking at the process of s p a t i a l appropriation. It was necessary to have some understanding of the process of s p a t i a l appropriation before developing a model of children's conceptions of that process. A review of the s p a t i a l behavior l i t e r a t u r e indicated that there was i n general a correspondence between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organi-zation of space. It indicated more s p e c i f i c a l l y that the product of s p a t i a l appropriation (e.g., the s o c i a l organization of space) r e f l e c t e d the s o c i a l r o l e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s (e.g., the s o c i a l structure) e x i s t i n g between members of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s e t t i n g . Although the studies did not deal with t h i s issue, i t was c l e a r that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space did not e x i s t apart from the actions of i n d i v i d u a l s . In more con-crete terms i t was the c o l l e c t i v e actions of i n d i v i d u a l s who repeatedly adhered to and enforced boundaries which reproduced the s o c i a l organization of space. As there were no relevant studies dealing with the structure of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s conception of boundaries i t was necessary at t h i s point to formulate a framework for looking at the "subjective" aspects of the process of s p a t i a l appropriation. The p h y s i c i s t , G. Spencer-Brown's d e f i n i t i o n of a boundary was taken as the s t a r t i n g point for constructing t h i s framework. Brown (1969) defines a boundary as a d i s t i n c t i o n , a point on a plane. With t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i n mind i t was argued that i n order to adhere to a boundary an i n d i v i d u a l would have to d i s t i n g u i s h between two categories of persons (e.g., those who could l e g i t i m a t e l y gain access to a space and those who couldn't) and two categories of space (e.g., private and non-private space). Thus, the a b i l i t y to d i s -t inguish between two s p a t i a l and s o c i a l categories required some knowledge 3 of both the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. In order to go beyond simply i d e n t i f y i n g these two components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the developmental psychology l i t e r a t u r e was con-sulted. Studies regarding the content of children's conceptions of society were focussed on, and an attempt was made to apply the findings to the model. Two relevant findings were extracted from the s o c i a l cognition studies. F i r s t , i t was reported that children's conceptions of society become more abstract and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d with age, and second that as ch i l d r e n get older they construct more integrated 'schemes' of 'systems of r e l a t i o n s ' (Youniss, 1978). A model was then constructed of the children's understanding of s o c i a l rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. It was based on the assumption that children's conceptions of the s o c i a l rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation would be s t r u c t u r a l l y consistent with t h e i r conceptions of other aspects of society. As there were no instruments for e l i c i t i n g verbal information from the c h i l d r e n about t h e i r understanding of s p a t i a l rules and conventions, i t was necessary to construct an interview schedule for use i n the f i n a l study. Thus a p i l o t study, involving interviews with f i f t e e n c h i l d r e n between the ages of f i v e and f i f t e e n , was conducted. 3 It should be noted however that i t i s assumed that an i n d i v i d u a l could choose to disregard a boundary given extensive knowledge of the s o c i a l structure and s o c i a l organization of space. Although such knowledge i s a prerequisite for adherence to boundaries, simply being aware of the lo c a t i o n of a boundary does not constitute a s u f f i c i e n t condition for adhering to that boundary. The p i l o t study provided a meanscof narrowing the focus of the questions to s i t u a t i o n s which were relevent to the c h i l d r e n , and of developing questions which were s t y l i s t i c l y and grammatically appropriate to various age l e v e l s . Based on the p i l o t data, an interview schedule was constructed. The questions focussed on rules and conventions operating i n three contexts: the home, school and neighborhood. The questions dealt with the l o c a t i o n of public, semi-public and private spaces, the various s o c i a l categories of persons who could or could not gain access to those spaces, and the children's explanations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for the rules and conventions. At t h i s point i t was decided to l i m i t the age groups i n the study to two; one group of s i x year olds and one group of twelve and t h i r t e e n year olds. This was done so as to f a c i l i t a t e comparison between and within age groups. It was anticipated, based on'the findings i n the s o c i a l cognition l i t e r a t u r e , that there would be q u a l i t a t i v e differences in the scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by the c h i l d r e n i n the two age groups. 1.6 Limitations This study i s exploratory and as such i s concerned with hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis t e s t i n g . As the r e s u l t s of the study are based on interviews with only f i f t e e n c h i l d r e n any findings must be seen as tentative and subject to rigorous empirical tests across a wide range of socio-economic and age groups. Although the model provides a preliminary t o o l f or organizing and c l a s s i f y i n g the children's responses, the interview schedule requires further s p e c i f i c a t i o n and t e s t i n g . As t h i s i s an exploratory study, the r e l i a b i l i t y of the interview schedule has not been established. It i s unclear, for example, whether or not the way i n which the c h i l d r e n interpret the questions i s consistent with the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n intended by the researcher. 13. Age differences i n the children's comprehension of terms such as 'ownership' may also be problematic. And, f i n a l l y , the extent to which the questions structure the children's responses should also be examined. 1.7 Rationale The study of children's conceptions of s p a t i a l appropriation has impli-cations for s p a t i a l behavior and s o c i a l cognition research as well as for the planning and design on multiple family housing developments. F i r s t , the children's responses provide us with an i n i t i a l source of information about the components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by i n d i v i d u a l s to* p a r t i c i p a t e i n the process of s p a t i a l appropriation. The study also provides an instrument for e l i c i t i n g information about children's conceptions of t h e i r s o c i o - s p a t i a l world, and, by v i r t u e of the model of f e r s a means of organizing and c l a s s i f y i n g that information. Second, the study i s relevant to the current s o c i a l cognition research which deals with the development of children's understanding of t h e i r s o c i a l world. The study thus provides a complementary source of information about a previously unexplored area of s o c i a l thought. Third, the study i s relevant to our understanding of children's s p a t i a l behavior. The study may, by discontinuing what i s currently assumed about children's knowledge of boundaries, lead to an alternate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e i r spatial.behavior. A p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s knowledge can be seen i n the case of the design of multiple-family housing. Designers have attempted to change children's s p a t i a l behavior by designing more impenetrable and v i s i b l e boundaries. They have argued that in order to keep c h i l d r e n out of private and semi-private spaces a l l that i s needed i s to make them aware of the boundary l o c a t i o n . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study may i n d i c a t e , however, that c h i l d r e n i n some c 14. cases transgress boundaries simply to aggrevate adults or to meet a physical challenge. They may see a fence as a symbol of adult domination or as a "something to climb on." Thus, t h e i r lack of adherence to a boundary may r e f l e c t rebelliousness or lack of opportunity for physical play rather than t h e i r lack of knowledge of that boundary. Therefore, by exploring children's conceptions and explanations f o r rules and conventions governing the use of space, i t may be possible to discover more about t h e i r motives for adhering to or ignoring boundaries. That i n -formation should enable planners to predict t h e i r s p a t i a l behavior and therefore improve the design of semi-public spaces i n multiple family housing develop-ments. 15. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction The l i t e r a t u r e review begins with a discussion of the t h e o r e t i c a l and empirical l i m i t a t i o n s of the concept of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , and moves to a review of crowding, personal space and proxemic studies. This broad spectrum of s p a t i a l behavior research i s used to develop a conceptual framework for looking at the process of s p a t i a l appropriation. The s o c i a l cognition l i t e r a t u r e i s reviewed next. A number of Piagetian-based studies dealing with children's conceptions of t h e i r s o c i a l world pro-vide the basis for developing an an a l y t i c framework for looking at children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. F i n a l l y , r e l a t e d studies are considered. In t h i s section an e c l e c t i c mixture of studies i n environmental psychology, architecture, h i s t o r y , and sociology are reviewed as they r e l a t e to the form and content of children's conceptions of t h e i r s o c i o - s p a t i a l world. 2.2 S p a t i a l Behavior Research Over the past decade the issue of ' t e r r i t o r i a l i t y ' has been prominent i n the s p a t i a l behavior l i t e r a t u r e (Altman 1970; Baldassare 1978; Edney 1974). Numerous researchers have argued that t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , the act of defining and defending space, i s an inherent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of human behavior. In the e a r l i e s t studies of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , ethologists suggested that t e r r i t o r i a l behavior was necessary to insure the s u r v i v a l of species,forced to compete for l i m i t e d amounts of space (Calhoun 1962; C h r i s t i a n , Flyger & Davis, 1960; Hediger 1964). So c i a l s c i e n t i s t s extrapolated from these e t h o l o g i c a l studies and used the concept of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y to account for increasing s o c i a l pathology in urban areas. They suggested that increases i n crime, disease, and suicide 16. could be at t r i b u t e d to the i n a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s and groups l i v i n g i n high density environments, to e s t a b l i s h and maintain claims to space (Galle et. a l . 1972; Schmidtt 1966). Although there has been some disagreement about the extent to which i t i s possible to generalize about human behavior from research with animals, a common assumption i n most of the studies i s that t e r r i t o r i a l i t y i s an expression of i n h e r i t e d b i o l o g i c a l or psychological drives (Ardrey 1966; Altman 1970; Stea, 1970). Several sub-areas i n the s p a t i a l behavior l i t e r a t u r e , including the proxemic, personal space and crowding research, can be subsumed under the conceptual umbrella of ' t e r r i t o r i a l i t y 1 . Although these sub-areas have not i n the past been conceptually linked with t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , they are a l l focussed on the same general issue - the d e f i n i t i o n and defense of s p a t i a l boundaries. "Personal space' studies, for example, have been concerned with the d e f i n i t i o n and defense of boundaries around the body which, unlike the t e r -r i t o r i a l boundaries, are conceived of assbeing mobile rather than fixed (Altman, 1975; Sundstrom 1975; Sommer 1969). 'Proxemics', the study of interpersonal distancing, has dealt with the establishment and regulation of boundaries between two or more persons ( A i e l l o & Jones 1971; H a l l ; 1966). F i n a l l y , crowding studies have examined the psychological and behavioral responses to environmentally produced conditions of r e s t r i c t e d interpersonal distance (Freedman Klevansky and E h r l i c h 1966; Hutt & Vaizey 1966; Stokols 1976). In these sub-areas, contextual and c u l t u r a l v a r i a t i o n i n patterns of s p a t i a l d e f i n i t i o n and control have been reported. Edward H a l l (1961), has shown that i n face-to-face i n t e r a c t i o n , the amount of space claimed by in d i v i d u a l s varies across cultures. Some c u l t u r a l groups maintain closer interpersonal distances i n conversations than do others. H a l l explains the 17. differences i n proxemic behavior by r e f e r r i n g to macroscopic conditions such as population density. He argues that i n d i v i d u a l s who grow up i n higher density environments f e e l more comfortable i n t e r a c t i n g at c l o s e r interper-sonal distances. H a l l (1966) has shown that 'proxemic' behavior i s also influenced by s o c i a l factors and thus i s not simply an i n h e r i t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of human behavior. He found i n experiments involving North American adults, that distances adopted i n conversations i n the laboratory and i n n a t u r a l i s t i c s e t tings, vary depending on the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between two or more persons. Friends, he found, maintained closer interpersonal distances than strangers. Studies s i m i l a r to those done by H a l l have been widespread over the past f i f t e e n years. In f a c t , Altman (1975) estimated that there were over 200 published studies dealing with the determination and consequence of spacing among dyads. Researchers have examined the influence of countless s o c i a l , environmental, c u l t u r a l , and psychological factors on proxemic behavior. Numerous studies have also demonstrated that the d e f i n i t i o n and defense of 'personal space' boundaries varies depending on the physical and s o c i a l features of the setting (Leibman 1970; Sommer 1969). Barasch (1973) has shown for example, that the length of time which s p a t i a l claims w i l l be de-fended i s influenced by the apparent status of the invader. Students i n a l i b r a r y s e t t i n g defended t h e i r personal space more aggressively when the invader was dressed as a student as opposed to a f a c u l t y member. In studies of s p a t i a l behavior conducted within i n s t i t u t i o n a l settings such as hos p i t a l s and l i b r a r i e s , Robert Sommer (1969) found that the physical arrangement of f u r n i t u r e influenced the nature and duration of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Although the findings may not be generalizable to a l l settings, r the argument can s t i l l be made that boundaries of personal space expand and 18. contract depending on the s o c i a l and physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s e t t i n g . Although Freedman et. a l . (1971) o r i g i n a l l y declared that 'crowding' necessa r i l y caused negative responses i n humans, Stokols (1976) has recently argued that responses to high density and close interpersonal distances vary depending on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception of the cause of the s p a t i a l r e s t r i c -t i o n . At a party, for example, where close interpersonal distances are anticipated and are often seen as being a 'normal' feature of the s e t t i n g , an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l l i k e l y not react negatively or f e e l 'crowded'. In other s i t u a t i o n s , such as on an uncrowded bus where close interpersonal distance i s unexpected and inappropriate, the perception of 'crowding' i s more l i k e l y . When considered c o l l e c t i v e l y , the personal space, proxemic and crowding research c i t e d demonstrates that s p a t i a l d e f i n i t i o n and use i s not simply an expression of b i o l o g i c a l and psychological f a c t o r s . Rather, the estab-lishment and maintenance of claims to space i s governed by a hi g h l y complex system of s o c i a l rules and conventions. As the s p a t i a l behavior research i l l u s t r a t e s , these rules and conventions are c o n t e x t - s p e c i f i c . The amount of space claimed, the non-verbal cues used to e s t a b l i s h and maintain claims to space, and the e f f e c t s of reduced amounts of space a l l vary depending on the s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l and physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s e t t i n g . The notion that s p a t i a l behavior i s governed by co n t e x t - s p e c i f i c rules and conventions i s an important element of Roger Barker's (1968) theory of e c o l o g i c a l psychology. Barker developed the concept of the 'behavior s e t t i n g 1 which accounted for the synomorphy or s i m i l a r i t y i n structure between en-vironment and behavior. Behavior settings consist of 1. non-behavioral factors such as time and space, 2. standing patterns of behavior or the com-plex but stable patterns of behavior which characterize the s e t t i n g , and 3. a r e l a t i o n s h i p between behavioral and non-behavioral factors (Gump; 1974). 19. An example of a behavior s e t t i n g used by Barker i s a music c l a s s , as i t occurs at a p a r t i c u l a r time at a p a r t i c u l a r place, i t has associated with i t p a r t i c u l a r patterns of behavior including playing instruments and discussion, and i t i s characterized by the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the organization of the physical environment (e.g., the arrangement of chairs and tables) and the standing patterns of behavior (e.g., discussion and instrument playing). According to Barker (1968) standing patterns of behavior, or the rules of the game according to which people and things are arranged, underly the synomorphy between the physical environment and s o c i a l behavior. In a classroom for example, the teachers and students behave according to 'standing patterns of behavior' which structure t h e i r use of the environment as well as the organization of the physical features of that environment. The student who i s f a m i l i a r with the classroom s e t t i n g i s aware that the standing patterns of behavior within the classroom include l i s t e n i n g to the teacher, and thus the student chooses a desk facing the teacher rather than one at the front of the room. The idea that s p a t i a l behavior i s governed by complex systems of s p a t i a l rules and conventions i s not however, acknowledged i n the t e r r i t o r i a l i t y research. It has been assumed that t e r r i t o r i a l i t y i s 'caused' by b i o l o g i c a l or psychological dr i v e s , and thus the complexities involved i n the context s p e c i f i c processes of s p a t i a l d e f i n i t i o n and control have been generally of l i t t l e i n t e r e s t or concern to researchers working in t h i s area. An exception to t h i s lacuna i s , however, a number of urban ethnographies which focusron street gangs and t h e i r attempts to define and defend t e r r i t o r y i n inner c i t y neighborhoods (Suttles 1968; Whyte 1955). Sut t l e s ' (1968), for example i n his ethnography of a Boston neighborhood observed that street gangs claimed p a r t i c u l a r areas i n a neighborhoodopark, women and younger 20. female ch i l d r e n occupied the stoops and porches of houses, and the-middle aged men's ' s o c i a l clubs' met i n the s p a t i a l l y segregated open garages, and rear rooms of l o c a l stores. Although Suttles does not make e x p l i c i t r e f e r -ence to the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between status and power of p a r t i c u l a r peer groups i n the community, and t h e i r a b i l i t y to control semi-public space, we f i n d evidence i n his descriptions to support that claim. 2.3 Symbolic Interactionism: a Theoretical Framework If we consider a broader spectrum of research, i t i s cl e a r that the ex i s t i n g unidimensional d e f i n i t i o n of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y i s inadequate to deal e f f e c t i v e l y with the complexities involved i n the process by which claims to space are established and maintained. A b i o l o g i c a l or narrow psychological model cannot account for the c r o s s - c u l t u r a l and contextual differences i n s p a t i a l behavior, nor can i t account for the correspondence which ex i s t s be-tween the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. Therefore, i n the context of t h i s study the term s p a t i a l appropriation rather than t e r r i t o r i a l i t y i s used to re f e r to an i n t e r a c t i v e , multi-dimen-s i o n a l process by which claims to space areeestablished and maintained. It i s assumed that s p a t i a l appropriation i s an inherently s o c i a l process rather than simply an expression of b i o l o g i c a l or psychological drives i n that i t is governed by a complex system of s o c i a l rules and conventions. Bedrooms, o f f i c e s and houses are a few examples of spaces that are gener-a l l y recognized as "belonging t o " an i n d i v i d u a l or group. One of the primary elements of t h i s "belongingness" i s that access to the space i s regulated by various s o c i a l rules and conventions, as well as, i n some cases, by physical b a r r i e r s such as doors and locks. In the case of an o f f i c e for example, non-occupants are generally expected to knock before entering and wait for permission to enter. However, 21. an i n d i v i d u a l who i s unfamiliar with the c u l t u r a l or s o c i a l context within which the o f f i c e and the rules and conventions are meaningful, may enter the o f f i c e d i r e c t l y . An i n d i v i d u a l may also choose to -disregard the rule and the boundary in order to challenge the occupant's claim to the o f f i c e . In e i t h e r case a s o c i a l r u l e has been broken and a boundary transgressed. The act of transgressing the boundary i n many cases forces a process of negotiation to occur between the occupant and the invader. Depending on several f a c t o r s , including the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power between the two p a r t i e s , the d e f i n i t i o n of one party about the meaning of the boundary may be enforced over the objections of the other. In any case, i t can be argued that claims to space are established and maintained by v i r t u e of an i n t e r a c t i v e process between those who make the claim and those who encounter i t . Furthermore, i n order for the claim to e x i s t and p e r s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s must comprehend and act according to the relevant s o c i a l rules and conventions. This dynamic perspective on s p a t i a l appropriation can be traced to George Herbert Mead's theory of symbolic interactionism. Blumer (1966) outlines Mead's concept of 'jo i n t action': Group l i f e takes on the character of an on-going process -a continuing matter of f i t t i n g developing l i n e s of conduct to one another. The f i t t i n g together of l i n e s of conduct i s done through the dual process of d e f i n i t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . This dual process operates both to sustain established patterns of j o i n t action and open them to transformation. Established patterns of group l i f e e x i s t and p e r s i s t only through the con-tinued use of the same schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; and such schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are maintained only through t h e i r continued confirmation by the defining acts of others (p. 286). According to Mead,'joint action' or s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n involves a process of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and d e f i n i t i o n . Patterns of action, or li n e s of conduct which allow such j o i n t action, exist because i n d i v i d u a l s use the same schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 22. In terms of s p a t i a l appropriation, the sca t t e r i n g of books and a r t i c l e s of c l o t h i n g on a desk i n a l i b r a r y , or knocking at an o f f i c e door before entering, are patterns of actions which contribute to the establishment and maintenance of s p a t i a l claims. I f both the person who i s e s t a b l i s h i n g the claim and those who encounter i t did not interpret the action i n the same way, i t would no longer be an e f f e c t i v e means of e s t a b l i s h i n g a s p a t i a l claim and therefore would f a l l into disuse. The second point made by Mead i s that schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p e r s i s t only because they are confirmed by the defining actions of others. So long as i n d i v i d u a l s continue to define and int e r p r e t s p a t i a l boundaries i n the same way, according to the same schemes, then those schemes w i l l be confirmed i n the minds of others and thus w i l l continue to be used. Thus, s p a t i a l appropriation as one example of a 'j o i n t action' exists and p e r s i s t s because part i c i p a n t s operate according to a common scheme of in t e r p r e t a t i o n . The question of the form and content of such a scheme s t i l l remains unanswered, however. 2.4 Developmental Psychology Literature As there are few e x i s t i n g studies of children's understanding of rules and conventions governing the use of space, the developmental psychology l i t e r a t u r e was consulted. Information was sought regarding the p o t e n t i a l influence of age on a c h i l d ' s conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. The psychological l i t e r a t u r e indicates that the levels of cognitive development, which generally correspond with age, structures a c h i l d ' s under-standing of h i s or her s o c i a l and physical world (Piaget, 1972; Furth, 1977; T u r i e l , 1975) Jean Piaget, one of the most i n f l u e n t i a l developmental theor-i s t s , posits a d i r e c t correspondence between the l e v e l of cognitive 23. development and the growth of knowledge ( F l a v e l l , 1973). His 'organismic-developmental 1 model i s based on the assumption that there are l o g i c a l structures which regulate the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge. Piaget argues that an i n d i v i d u a l constructs an understanding of the world through a d i a l e c t i c a l process of a s s i m i l a t i o n and accommodation. That i s , an i n d i v i d u a l interprets the world by 'assimilating' new information into e x i s t i n g cognitive structures or schemas,^ or 'accommodates' or changes those schemas to resolve incon-s i s t e n c i e s . The schemas become more sophisticated with age, allowing for increasingly complex and abstract thought. Piaget has defined four stages of cognitive development, which although they are associated with p a r t i c u l a r age ranges are more importantly thought to be consecutive stages ( i . e . , a c h i l d cannot skip a stage but must move from one l e v e l to the next). Movement from one stage to the next i s con-tingent upon the development of 'operative' knowledge, or "the operations by which the c h i l d transforms parts of the world into reconstructable pat-terns" (Hartand Moore; 1973). The stages are 1) sensory motor 2) pre-operational 3) concrete operational and 4) formal operational. The sensory motor stage from b i r t h u n t i l approximately two years of age i s e s s e n t i a l l y the stage of the 'conquest of the object' (Elkind; 1970) represented by the c a p a b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between the s e l f and objects i n the external environment. During t h i s stage a c h i l d becomes capable of i n t e r n a l i z e d thought rather than simply r e f l e x action. During a pre-operational stage of cognitive development from approxi-mately two to s i x years of age, the c h i l d i s i n the process of learning a language and i s capable of using symbols. The c h i l d i s thus able to think It should be noted that the term 'scheme' as i t i s used i n t h i s study i s not equated with Piaget's concept of a 'schema'. A 'scheme' r e f e r s to the content rather than the l o g i c a l structure of ideas about space. 24. about objects which are not d i r e c t l y observable. At t h i s stage the c h i l d ' s thought i s s t i l l egocentric as he or she cannot take the perspective of others. At a concrete operational stage from approximately seven to eleven years of age the c h i l d masters classes and r e l a t i o n s and can deal with two elements, properties or r e l a t i o n s at one time. The c h i l d i s now capable of l o g i c a l thought, a l b e i t at elementary l e v e l s . Elementary s y l l o g i s t i c rea-soning can be employed and the c h i l d can formulate hypotheses about concrete matters. At formal operational l e v e l from approximately twelve to fourteen years of age and beyond, the adolescent i s able to think i n abstract terms and to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the s e l f ' s thoughts and the thoughts of others. The c h i l d i s able to reason and to make hypotheses about abstract phenomena using hypothetical deductive reasoning. In terms of t h i s study, there are at least three elements of t h i s theory of cognitive development which are of d i r e c t relevance to the study of c h i l d -ren's understanding of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. They are 1) the idea that a c h i l d progresses from an egocentric to a more u n i v e r s a l i s t i c cognitive o r i e n t a t i o n . That i s , as the c h i l d grows older she i s able to decentre and take the perspective of the "generalized other" (Mead, 1944) 2) that there i s a progression i n an i n d i v i d u a l ' s cognitive development from a r e l a t i v e l y global stage accompanied by lack of d i f f e r e n -t i a t i o n , to a state of increasing d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , a r t i c u l a t i o n and heirarc-. hie integration (Werner 1955) and 3) the progression of cognitive development from concrete to formal operations enabling the c h i l d , by the time she reaches formal operations to deal with abstract as w e l l as concrete concepts. 25. 2.4.1 S o c i a l Cognition Research The study of a c h i l d ' s understanding of s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s as opposed to impersonal objects has emerged as a s u b - f i e l d within developmental psy-chology over the past twenty years (Chandler, 1977). Prior to the populari-zation of Piagetian theory i n North America, s o c i a l development research was contained within the realm of s o c i a l psychology and psychoanalysis. Although Piaget's theory of knowledge i s not nec e s s a r i l y r e s t r i c t e d to the development of knowledge of physical objects, most of the research using a Piagetian model has been concentrated on the c h i l d ' s understanding of the non-social world (Kuhn, 1978). In the past decade, however, Piagetian-based s o c i a l cognition research has f l o u r i s h e d . Researchers have dealt with topics such as children's know-ledge of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s (Furth, 1978), s o c i a l roles and re l a t i o n s h i p s (Youniss, 1978), the p o l i t i c a l system (Adelson and O'-Neil, 1966), and the economic system (Jahoda, 1978). An important contribution to the study of children's conceptions of t h e i r s o c i a l world i s the work of psychologist Hans Furth (1976). Furth, operating within a Piagetian framework, studied children's understanding of s o c i a l events such as the operation of stores, schools and governments. After interviewing approximately 200 children between the ages of 5 and 11 Furth claimed that f i v e and s i x year olds conceive of society as undifferen-t i a t e d (minimal r o l e and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s ) , personalized ( v o l u n t a r i s t i c ) , and operating according to set r u l e s . In h i s study the youngest c h i l d r e n based t h e i r explanations for s o c i a l events s o l e l y on t h e i r observations. They believed, for example, that a l l money originated i n the change given by the shopkeeper to the customer. I f the c h i l d ' s mothers needed money to pay the rent, many of the chi l d r e n believed that she would go to the store 26. and ask the shopkeeper for some. They came to recognize s o c i a l functions and obligations at about nine or ten years of age. They understood then that just as customers pay for goods brought i n the store, so shopkeepers also pay for goods delivered to the store. By eleven years of age the c h i l d r e n began to use an 'ov e r a l l system of r e l a t i o n s ' to check the reasonableness and consistency of interpretations or explanations. This system of r e l a t i o n s consisted of d i f f e r e n t i a t e d rules about several sub-systems (e.g., r o l e s , the exchange of money e t c . ) . Gustav Jahoda (1978) extended Furth's study by exploring children's conceptions of the economic system or the 'system of money'. He interviewed approximately 120 chi l d r e n between the ages of 6 and 12. Jahoda argues that while previous studies focussed on children's understanding of a 'concept', of money, what was needed was an understanding of children's conceptions of the functioning of systems within which money plays a c r u c i a l r o l e . His r e s u l t s show that i n q u a l i t a t i v e terms, children's conceptions of an economic system progress toward an understanding of systems and t h e i r i n t e r -r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The youngest ch i l d r e n interviewed i n the study did not under-stand the r e l a t i o n s h i p between money exchanged between customers and shop-keepers, and the buying and s e l l i n g of goods. As the ch i l d r e n got older, however, they came to r e a l i z e that the shopkeeper had to pay for h i s goods and that money for t h i s comes from customers. By about ten years of age the c h i l d r e n were more aware of the differences between buying and s e l l i n g p r i c e s , a prerequisite for understanding how the two systems (e.g., buying and s e l l i n g ) are intermeshed. Jahoda, l i k e many other researchers dealing with s o c i a l cognition, assumes a ' c o n s t r u c t i v i s t ' theory of knowledge. The ch i l d r e n were not just repeating something that they had heard at school or had been t o l d at home. They were faced with 27. questions that were usually quite new for them and they a c t i v e l y t r i e d to f i t together whatever information was at t h e i r disposal i n order to produce an answer. This i s the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for employing the term 'construction' to characterize t h e i r e f f o r t s (p. 119). This c o n s t r u c t i v i s t p o s i t i o n has also been adopted by William Damon (1978) i n his study of the development of children's understanding of s o c i a l rules and conventions including those governing friendship, dress, and eating habits. Damon, who also works within a Piagetian framework, found that children's understanding of s o c i a l rules and conventions becomes more abstract, d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and principle-governed with age. Children at approximately s i x years of age were generally aware of cont e x t - s p e c i f i c rules and conventions (e.g., "eating food with your hands i s not allowed at the dinner t a b l e " ) . By about twelve or th i r t e e n years of age the ch i l d r e n had however developed a more complex and generalizable understanding of s o c i a l rules and conventions (e.g., "eating habits are c u l t u r a l l y defined, i n North America i t i s not s o c i a l l y acceptable to eat with one's hands"). According to Damon, young chi l d r e n i n i t i a l l y learn s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c rules and conventions by taking the perspective of one other person, such as a parent or teacher. The c h i l d must be aware that another i n d i v i d u a l has a d i f f e r e n t perspective than his or her own i n ordertto recognize that a rul e e x i s t s . As the c h i l d gets older and i s capable of abstract and r e f l e x -ive thought, he or she i s able to take the perspective of the larger society or the "generalized other" (Mead, 1944). Only then i s the c h i l d able to comprehend and act according to the s o c i a l rules and conventions which are not c o n t e x t - s p e c i f i c prescriptions for behavior l a i d out by p a r t i c u l a r i n -d i v i d u a l s . Two common themes emerge from these s o c i a l cognition studies. The f i r s t i s that s o c i a l knowledge i s constructed given c e r t a i n cognitive s k i l l s and 28. experiences. The second i s that children's s o c i a l thought becomes more abstract, d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , and principle-governed with^age. As c h i l d r e n get older they construct more complex, abstract and integrated schemes for i n -t e r p r e t i n g s o c i a l actions and events. 2.5 Related Studies 2.5.1 Children's Use and Conceptions of Space There are a number of researchers who have attempted to test Piaget's theory of cognitive development i n r e l a t i o n to children's developing under-standing and knowledge of the physical environment. Hart and Moore (1973) for example examined the development of ' s p a t i a l cognition' which they de-fined as "the knowledge and i n t e r n a l or cognitive representation of the structure, e n t i t i e s and r e l a t i o n s of space ... (p. 248)." They argue that children's image of space develops during the pre-operational period. At t h i s stage of a 'fixed system of reference 1 the c h i l d uses a small number of uncoordinated landmarks or places to organize a s p a t i a l image. The c h i l d seems to be beginning on one hand to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between himself and the environment, and on the other between elements within the environment. During concrete operations these landmarks begin to be coordinated and the c h i l d ' s cognitive representation of large-scale environments begins to take shape. Upon reaching the formal operational stage the authors found that c h i l d r e n were not only able to coordinate mentally the concrete d e t a i l s of the environment, but they were also able to think about concepts such as length and distance abstractly. Acredolo et. a l . (1976) tested Mart and Moore's (1973) model of the de-velopment of s p a t i a l cognition i n t h e i r study of frames of reference used by c h i l d r e n for o r i e n t a t i o n i n unfamiliar places. They also found*~that children's knowledge of the environment progresses from an egocentricfframe of reference 29. based on the r e l a t i o n of objects to t h e i r own bodies to a fixed frame of reference based on landmarks, and f i n a l l y to a coordinated and abstract frame of reference. We must be cautious about accepting these r e s u l t s however without recog-n i z i n g that there i s not necessarily a correspondence between an i n t e r n a l representation and the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to communicate that representation p i c t o r i a l l y , v e r b a l l y , or topographically. It i s possible that a c h i l d of f i v e or s i x may appear not to have an i n t e r n a l i z e d image of the s p a t i a l environment, because, for example, he or she lacks 'sophicated' or adult-l i k e drawing or verbal s k i l l s . Given that recognition, however, and the fact that t h i s study i s focussed on the c h i l d ' s v e r b a l i z a t i o n s of knowledge about t h e i r s o c i o - s p a t i a l world, we can extract from these studies support for the idea that c h i l d r e n as they get older w i l l at least display increasingly abstract and coordinated know-ledge of the s o c i o - s p a t i a l environment, even though t h e i r knowledge might have developed at an e a r l i e r age. Thor.nberg (1973) was also interested i n studying the evolution of Piagetian stages i n children's conceptions of space. He had c h i l d r e n b u i l d places to l i v e i n out of clay blocks. Three to f i v e year olds b u i l t s o l i d massive forms with no d i s t i n c t i o n made between the container and the contents. Concrete operational c h i l d r e n b u i l t enclosed spaces and were i n c l i n e d to i d e n t i f y places according -to t h e i r functional p o t e n t i a l . The. eight and nine year olds were concrete i n t h e i r conceptions of places to l i v e i n and although they did show some evidence of abstract thought they had d i f f i c u l t y l i n k i n g the thought with the manipulation of the material. Formal operational c h i l d r e n demon-strated an experimental attitude toward the construction of places to l i v e i n , and were able to describe t h e i r buildings at a l e v e l of physical and s o c i a l 30. functioning. Rand's (1972) study of the development of children's p i c t o r i a l and s o c i a l images of houses also documents the influence of cognitive development on children's conceptions of t h e i r s o c i o - s p a t i a l world. When he asked c h i l d r e n to draw and describe the houses they l i v e d i n he found that the f i v e and si x year olds viewed the house as a collage of objects although they under-stood the fundamental s p a t i a l rules which operated i n the house such as rules about access to and uses of d i f f e r e n t spaces. Boundary markers such as fences, doors and landscaping were conceived of as play objects. Eight and nine year olds on the other hand recognized the general properties of the s o c i a l organ-i z a t i o n of the family and had developed an awareness of the l o c a l neighborhood. Children at ten and eleven years of age had f u l l y assimilated the rules as-sociated with the s o c i o - s p a t i a l order of the home and family. The older children were also able to generate abstract and systematic rules regarding appropriate behavior over a wide range of s i t u a t i o n s . Another important study by Wolfe and Laufer (1974) on children's concept of privacy treats cognitive development as a factor which determines the s t r u c t u r a l organization of a ch i l d ' s understanding of s o c i o - s p a t i a l concepts. The authors interviewed approximately 287 ch i l d r e n between the ages of 5 and 17 and asked them to define privacy. The authors found that the children's concepts of privacy i n general became more complex and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d with age. This finding i s consistent with other studies dealing with socio-cog-n i t i v e development. The authors found that the use of 'alone' as a d e f i n i t i o n of privacy increased with age, p a r a l l e l l i n g the development of s e l f - o b j e c t d i f f e r e n -t i a t i o n , and that with increasing age the ch i l d r e n were able to give more 'operative' concepts of privacy based on abstract p r i n c i p l e s such as c o n t r o l . 31. Wolfe and Laufer point to the importance to both the c h i l d ' s cognitive capacities and t h e i r experience, i n the development of s o c i a l knowledge. They argue that a conception of privacy i s influenced by 1) the age at which the c h i l d develops a sense of psychological s e l f which has implications for autonomy and c o n t r o l 2) the ways i n which adults i n the c h i l d ' s immediate milie u perceive, react to and define the c h i l d ' s desires for privacy, r i g h t s to privacy, and r i g h t s to freedom from invasion, 4) the extent and type of i n t e r a c t i o n with others and 5) the c h i l d ' s general a b i l i t i e s and emotional maturity. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the larger s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l context and children's conceptions of the s o c i o - s p a t i a l world i s an important feature of Wolfe and Laufer's study. They do not take a s t r i c t l y psychological perspective on the development of s o c i a l knowledge but rather assume that the children's conceptions w i l l r e f l e c t the s o c i a l context. For example, the authors argue that the b e l i e f s held by adults about the c h i l d ' s " r i g h t " to privacy w i l l influence the extent to which the c h i l d can a c t u a l l y control access to private spaces such as bedrooms, and bathroom. Thus, the s o c i a l attitudes regarding c h i l d r e n w i l l i n d i r e c t l y shape the c h i l d ' s conception of, or desire f o r , "privacy". The argument that s o c i a l knowledge r e f l e c t s not only psychological fac-tors but also environmental s o c i a l , and c u l t u r a l patterns i s a c e n t r a l feature of Urie Bronfenbrenner's e c o l o g i c a l theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)^. In the introduction to h i s book Bronfenbrenner defines the ecology see also McGurk, 1977; for a discussion of an e c o l o g i c a l approach to human development. 32. of human development as: ... the s c i e n t i f i c study of the progressive, mutual accomodation between an active growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings i n which that developing person l i v e s , as that process i s affected by r e l a t i o n s between the settings and by the larger contexts i n which the settings are embedded, (p. 21). There are a number of assumptions underlying t h i s e c o l o g i c a l perspective which are c e n t r a l to the model of children's conceptions of rules and conven-tions governing s p a t i a l appropriation.- These assumptions are the grounds upon which Bronfenbrenner's model and the model presented i n t h i s study can be compared, and at the same time d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from other current theories of human development and human action i n the psychological and s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e s . F i r s t , i n contrast to t r a d i t i o n a l psychological models which focus on processes such as perception, motivation, thinking and learning, an ecolo-g i c a l model advocates a focus on the content of s o c i a l knowledge (e.g., what i s perceived, thought about and acquired as knowledge). Second an e c o l o g i c a l model examines how the psychological material changes as a r e s u l t of the person's exposure to an i n t e r a c t i o n with the s o c i a l - p h y s i c a l environment. An e c o l o g i c a l perspective d i f f e r s from current psychological theories of development (e.g., Piaget, 1967) i n terms of the importance placed on "context". Although Piaget's theory of cognitive development i s based on the assumption that knowledge i s constructed out of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r a c t i o n with the physical and s o c i a l environment, he and his colleagues have focussed p r i -marily on the non-social or "decontextualized" aspects of knowledge. Bronfenbrenner, on the other hand stresses that development never takes place i n a vacuum, and that i t always i s embedded and expressed through behavior i n a p a r t i c u l a r environmental context. He refe r s to Kurt Lewin's (1936) 33. premise that behavior evolves as a function oftthe i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and the environment. Bronfenbrenner argues that research on human development has focussed too heavily on genetic propensities and phy-s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and has not given the environmental side of the equation i t s due. To counteract that l i m i t a t i o n Bronfenbrenner suggests that a developing human being i s affected not only by the environmental, s o c i a l and psychological systems operating i n the immediate setting,bbut also events occuring i n other settings and i n the larger context i n which the settings are embedded. Thus, Bronfenbrenner's t h e o r e t i c a l framework of f e r s support for the argument that children's conceptions of the rules and conventions governing the appropriation of space w i l l r e f l e c t various aspects of thessocio-cul-t u r a l system i n which they l i v e . Although t h i s issue has not been dealt with extensively i n the s p a t i a l behavior l i t e r a t u r e , t t h e r e are several un-r e l a t e d studies which can be referred to at t h i s point to i l l u s t r a t e some of the ways in which s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l conditions may structure children's ideas and b e l i e f s about the appropriate d e f i n i t i o n and use of space. 2.5.2 Impact of the Socio-Cultural Context P h i l l i p e Aries (1962), a s o c i a l h i s t o r i a n , has explored the development of the idea of "childhood". Based on h i s t o r i c a l records he argues that the idea of "childhood" as a d i s t i n c t period i n l i f e did not e x i s t p r i o r to the middle of the sixteenth century. He notes that c h i l d r e n i n the medieval period were treated as "small adults" and a f t e r the age of seven or eight were accorded the same ri g h t s and p r i v i l e d g e s as were adults. It was only with the r i s e i n education and r e l i g i o u s idealism i n the seventeenth century that c h i l d r e n were recognized as a d i s t i n c t s o c i a l category. Thus, Aries' s o c i a l h h i s t o r y of childhood suggests that children's con-34. ceptions of rules and conventions must be seen as an a r t i f a c t of the socio-c u l t u r a l context. More s p e c i f i c a l l y Aries would argue that i n so far as the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of childhood influences the range and type of experience c h i l d r e n have, i t w i l l structure t h e i r conceptions of the s o c i a l world of which they are a part. Danzinger (1970) also argues that children's conceptions of t h e i r s o c i a l world i s a function of t h e i r s o c i o - c u l t u r a l m i l i e u . He states that: the c h i l d i s s o c i a l i z e d by ... h i s {siq} school, peer group as well as the mass media and the p o s i t i o n which his parent's occupy i n the s o c i a l structure. He i s also s o c i a l i z e d by v i r t u e of belonging to a p a r t i c u l a r culture at a p a r t i c u l a r stage i n h i s t o r y (p. 18). A study by Fry and W i l l i s (1971) demonstrates how the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of childhood influences adults' reactions to the s p a t i a l behavior of c h i l d r e n . The authors examined the reactions of adults to the invasion of personal space by c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages. They found that f i v e year olds received a p o s i t i v e reaction, eight year olds were ignored and the ten year olds were negatively sanctioned i n a s i m i l a r fashion as would an adult i n the same s i t u -ation. The authors argue that norms for privacy and i n t r u s i o n are defined d i f -f e r e n t l y for c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages and as such r e f l e c t adults' perceptions of whether or not the c h i l d i s an independent being capable of being respon-s i b l e for h i s or her own actions. Numerous studies have also shown that the parents r e s t r i c t the 'home range' or the t e r r i t o r y of c h i l d r e n depending on t h e i r age and sex (Andrews 1973; Hart 1979). Coates and Brussard (1974), for example, studied children's s p a t i a l behavior i n a moderate density housing development and found that while four and f i v e year olds stayed within f i f t y feet of the dwelling unit s i x to nine year olds t r a v e l l e d to t h e i r friend's houses which were often located outside of the cul-de-sac. The boys also were allowed to go o f f the s i t e to stores and 'wild areas' while g i r l s of the same age were r e s t r i c t e d 35. to on-site locations. Parents were much s t r i c t e r with g i r l s than boys, and with younger as opposed to older children. Thus, the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of childhood displayed by the s p a t i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s set by the parents influences the range of children's environmental experiences. As the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of childhood structures the c h i l d ' s experience i t should therefore have an impact on t h e i r conceptions of the s o c i o - s p a t i a l environment. The b e l i e f that c h i l d r e n are s o c i a l l y incompetent members of society who are not responsible for t h e i r own actions, i s one which seems to be current in our culture. The assumption that children transgress boundaries, for example, because they don't "know any b e t t e r " has been expressed in several d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a t u r e s . For instance, a discussion of "trespassing c h i l d r e n " was found i n the C a l i f o r n i a Law Review (Prosser, 1957) : Children, as i s well known to anyone who has been a c h i l d , are by nature u n r e l i a b l e and unresponsible people, who are quite l i k e l y to do almost anything. In p a r t i c u l a r , they have a deplorable tendency to stray upon land which does not belong to them and to meddle with what they f i n d there (p. 427). The author, William Prosser, assumes that c h i l d r e n are s o c i a l l y incompetent i n d i v i d u a l s who c o n t i n u a l l y f a i l to heed s o c i a l conventions and rules of proper action. He implies that c h i l d r e n transgress boundaries and invade "private property" because they are not " c i v i l i z e d " . Sheri Cavan (1974), as w e l l known s o c i o l o g i s t , on the other hand draws attention to the b e l i e f held by adults that c h i l d r e n are unaware of boundaries and the rules and conventions which govern access and use of private, semi-private and public space. She writes: The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c h i l d i s h behavior as opposed to adult or mature behavior revolves p r i m a r i l y around the notion that the c h i l d does not have a complete sense of other people's privacy, or the, l i m i t s of h i s own i n d i v i d u a l area. Children are pictured as intruding and protruding at w i l l (p. 55). A number of planners and architects have recently pointed to the problems 36. generated i n multiple family housing developments by children's lack of adherence to s o c i a l rules and conventions governing the use of space. According to a number of studies, one of the major problems associated with higher density housing i s the d i f f i c u l t y i n e s t a b l i s h i n g and maintaining privacy (Cooper-Marcus, 1972; United Way, 1972). Children, due to t h e i r tendency to invade private spaces have been i d e n t i f i e d as one of the primary sources of the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n experienced by adults (Beck 1977; Becker, 1976; Cooper, 1975). An assumption underlying these studies i s that children's f a i l u r e to adhere to boundaries i s a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e i r lack of awareness of the s o c i a l rules and conventions regarding use and access to space, and i n more general terms t h e i r lack of awareness of boundaries between private and public space. Although the study w i l l not investigate children's s p a t i a l behavior, or the effectiveness of various types of boundaries, i t may contribute to an understanding of the children's motives for transgressing boundaries. By exploring t h e i r conceptions or ideas about rules and conventions which govern use of and access to space, i t may be possible to develop a better understanding of t h e i r s p a t i a l behavior. 37. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3.1 The Analytic Framework A review of the s p a t i a l behavior l i t e r a t u r e indicates that the u n i d i -mensional concept of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y i s inadequate to deal with the complexity of the process by which claims to space are established and maintained. Therefore the concept of s p a t i a l appropriation has been introduced. S p a t i a l appropriation i s defined as a multi-dimensional, s o c i a l process which involves both the ind i v i d u a l s who e s t a b l i s h claims to space and those who encounter those claims. The l i t e r a t u r e on personal space, proxemics. and crowding suggests that s p a t i a l behavior i n general, and the process of s p a t i a l appropriation i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s governed by a complex system of cont e x t - s p e c i f i c rules and conventions. The notion that i n d i v i d u a l s construct a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n order to comprehend and act according to these context s p e c i f i c rules and conventions i s based on G.H. Mead's theory of 'joint action'. Mead (1936) argued that i n order for patterns of s o c i a l action or 'joint action' to exi s t and p e r s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s must use common schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . As spa-t i a l appropriation involves a process of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and d e f i n i t i o n , and can therefore be defined as a j o i n t action, i t can be argued that i n d i v i -duals are able to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the process of s p a t i a l appropriation because they use a common scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The s o c i a l cognition l i t e r a t u r e , based on Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development, provides a framework for looking at how in d i v i d u a l s construct schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The s o c i a l cognition studies suggest that c h i l d r e n do not simply i n t e r n a l i z e a set of rules and conventions regarding the use of space, but rather construct an understanding of those rules based on an i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e i r cognitive s k i l l s and experience. 38. These studies also suggest that although c h i l d r e n may i n i t i a l l y learn context-s p e c i f i c rules and conventions, with age they construct more abstract and integrated schemes from which they can derive s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c p r e s c r i p t i o n s for proper action. F i n a l l y , the environmental and s o c i a l h i s t o r i c a l studies reviewed suggest that children's conceptions of t h e i r s o c i o - s p a t i a l world i s an expression of the s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l context i n which they l i v e . 3.2 The Model of S p a t i a l Appropriation The model of s p a t i a l appropriation provides an a n a l y t i c a l t o o l for dealing with some of the complexities involved i n the process of s p a t i a l d e f i n i t i o n and use while s t i l l r e t a i n i n g a focus on the dynamic, multi-dimensional processes involved. Four assumptions underly the proposed model of s p a t i a l appropriation. F i r s t , i t i s assumed that the establishment and maintenance of claims to space i s a learned aspect of human action rather than an expression of inh e r i t e d b i o l o g i c a l or psychological drives. This means that i n d i v i d u a l s do not appropriate space out of any phy s i o l o g i c a l "need" to have and control t e r -r i t o r y , but rather that they learn the c u l t u r a l and co n t e x t - s p e c i f i c rules and conventions regarding the appropriate d e f i n i t i o n and use of space, and act on the basis of t h e i r understanding of those rules and conventions. The second assumption i s that s p a t i a l appropriation involves a dual process of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and d e f i n i t i o n . Both the in d i v i d u a l s who are es t a b l i s h i n g a claim to a space and those who encounter that claim are seen as being co-participants i n the process of s p a t i a l appropriation. In contrast to the assumption associated with t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , that the d e f i n i t i o n and de-fense of space i s an independent action committed by i n d i v i d u a l s or groups, the model of s p a t i a l appropriation assumes the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between those who attempt to claim a space and those who d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y 39. encounter that claim. For a space to be successfully appropriated, not only must the boundaries be recognized, but the individuals who encounter those boundaries must accept the claim as legitimate. Otherwise, the boundary w i l l be ignored and the claim w i l l be up for negotiation. For example, a theater-goer's attempt to establish and maintain a claim to a seat by leaving a jacket on the seat at intermission w i l l only be successful i f other theater-goers f i r s t interpret the jacket as a symbol of a boundary and second accept the legitimacy of the claim. If the other theater patrons simply remove the jacket because they do not accept the notion that seats can be "saved", or i f they sat down because they did not interpret i t as a boundary market, the attempt to appropriate that space would f a i l . That i s , unless the jacket owner de-fended his claim and enforced his d e f i n i t i o n over the objections of the new occupant the attempt to appropriate the theater seat would be unsuccessful. Thus, i t i s argued that both parties participate i n the process of sp a t i a l appropriation according to a> dynamic process of interpretation and d e f i n i t i o n . The t h i r d assumption i s that s p a t i a l appropriation i s a multi-dimensional process. The arrangement of the physical environment, the actions of i n d i -viduals within that setting, and the interpretation of both the so c i a l and physical d e f i n i t i o n of space by the participants are three major dimensions of the process of s p a t i a l appropriation. Thus, as opposed to the unidimen-sional concept of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , which i s defined as simply a b i o l o g i c a l or psychological phenomenon, the model of sp a t i a l appropriation acknowledges the interrelationship among physical, s o c i a l and psychological factors. The fourth assumption i s that s p a t i a l appropriation reproduces the interrelationship between the socia l structure and the so c i a l organization of space. That i s , the product of s p a t i a l appropriation (e.g., the so c i a l 40. organization of space) r e f l e c t s the s o c i a l roles and r e l a t i o n s h i p s (e.g., the s o c i a l structure) e x i s t i n g among members of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s e t t i n g . The s o c i a l structure i s defined as the composite of s o c i a l roles and r e l a -tionships which e x i s t between members of a p a r t i c u l a r s e t t i n g , and the s o c i a l organization of space i s defined as a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system which i s used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e one geographical space from another (e.g., a s p a t i a l heirarchy from private, to semi-private and public space). 3.3. Model of Children's Conceptions of Sp a t i a l Appropriation The model i s based on the premise that i n d i v i d u a l s construct a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n order to make sense of the complex system of rules and conventions governing the use and d e f i n i t i o n of space. There are two secon-dary assumptions regarding the form of such a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The f i r s t i s that a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n consists of two i n t e r r e l a t e d com-ponents ,kknowledge of the s o c i a l structure and knowledge of the s o c i a l organi-zation of space. The second assumption i s that a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l become more abstract, integrated and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d with age, and that i n a more mature form i t consists of an understanding of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. 3.3.1 Components of a Scheme of Interpretation i . knowledge of the s o c i a l structure Knowledge of the s o c i a l structure i s defined as a system of ideas and b e l i e f s about s o c i a l r o l e s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s and s o c i a l organization. Knowledge of the s o c i a l structure can range from a s i m p l i s t i c and concrete understanding of s o c i a l roles to a more complex and abstract understanding of s o c i a l organization. The l e v e l of understanding may vary depending upon a number of factors, one of which i s age. At a s i m p l i s t i c l e v e l , knowledge of the s o c i a l structure involves making 41. a d i s t i n c t i o n between two categories of persons. With respect to the issue of s p a t i a l appropriation, a r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l i s t i c understanding of ;the s o c i a l structure of a p a r t i c u l a r setting would be displayed by the a b i l i t y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between those who are allowed access to a p a r t i c u l a r space ( s o c i a l category A) and those who are not ( s o c i a l category A). At a more complex l e v e l , knowledge of the s o c i a l structure i s displayed by a more abstract understanding of the underlying dimensions of s o c i a l organization such as power, status, and authority. i i . knowledge of the s o c i a l organization of space The second component of an understanding of s p a t i a l appropriation i s knowledge of the s o c i a l organization of space. The s o c i a l , as opposed to l e g a l , organization of space i s defined as a c u l t u r a l l y s p e c i f i c c l a s s i f i -cation system used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e one geographical space from another. In our culture the s o c i a l organization of space consists of a heirarchy of dis c r e t e categories from private, to semi-private and public space. At a s i m p l i s t i c l e v e l an understanding of the s o c i a l organization of space consists of knowledge about the location and meaning of boundaries. More s p e c i f i c a l l y i t involves recognizing that a boundary ex i s t s and therefore that there i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between one space (A) and another (A). At a more abstract l e v e l , knowledge of the s o c i a l organization of space consists of an understanding of the s o c i a l meaning of the d i s t i n c t i o n s between private, semi-private and public space, (eg. a dwelling i s a "private" space in that the occupant may l e g i t i m a t e l y control access and use of that space). 3.3.2 Levels of Understanding According to the s o c i a l cognition l i t e r a t u r e i t appears that by approxi-mately s i x years of age c h i l d r e n have a concrete and r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l i s t i c , c o n t e x t - s p e c i f i c understanding of s o c i a l rules and conventions. With age 42. and experience they construct, however, a more abstract and integrated scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of knowledge of the s o c i a l structure and s o c i a l organization of space and the r e l a t i o n s between them. An example of a 'concrete' conception of a rule'would be that "the workmen can go i n the park any time they l i k e because they b u i l t i t " , whereas a more abstract conception would be "anyone can go into the park because everyone owns i t and i t i s public " . A scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n at the f i r s t l e v e l i s characterized by some awareness of s o c i a l roles with no understanding of the rules and conventions governing access to space. It was decided that "no understanding" at the f i r s t l e v e l would be characterized by a statement that everyone had equal rights of access to "private spaces" such as the principal's o f f i c e at school or a private dwelling. At the second l e v e l the c h i l d would be aware of the rules and conventions but would not be able to formulate an explanation which took into account the r e l a t i o n s h i p between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s o c i a l role or p o s i t i o n i n the s o c i a l structure and his or her a b i l i t y to gain access to a p a r t i c u l a r space. The c h i l d ' s explanation would consist of d e s c r i p t i v e statements concerning the a t t r i b u t e s of the s o c i a l category of person (eg. "children can't go into the staffroom because they might s p i l l milk"), or categories of space (eg. "students can't go into the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e because the door i s locked"). Or, the c h i l d might simply indicate that he or she did not know why the rule existed. At the t h i r d l e v e l the c h i l d would display i n his or her explanation some understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. The c h i l d would, for example, explain a rule by making an e x p l i c i t comparison between two s o c i a l categories of 43. persons (eg. teacher's can go into the staffroom because they are older and bigger than students), or between two categories of space (eg."I can play i n the park because i t i s public, but I can't go into the apartment court-yard because I don't l i v e there".) At the fourth l e v e l the' c h i l d ' s explanation would simply be more abstract and integrated than at the t h i r d l e v e l . The c h i l d would explain a rule or conventions by r e f e r r i n g to concepts such as power, status, or ownership which underly the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space (eg. students can't go into the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e "because he i s in charge and has more power than the students", or "strangers can't come into our house because our family owns i t and we have the le g a l r i g h t to t e l l them to leave"). It should be noted that these l e v e l s of understanding are meant to represent points on a continuum rather than discontinuous "stages". Each l e v e l i s characterized by a c e r t a i n degree of understanding of both the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. Because the le v e l s do not r e f l e c t absolute quantities of knowledge, but rather r e l a t i v e degrees of understanding, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of responses can be problematic. For instance, when a response contains reference to both the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space, i t may be d i f f i c u l t to ascertain whether or not the i n d i v i d u a l i s aware of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two components. The i n c l u s i o n of ideas about both components in one sentence may imply an understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p when in fact no such understanding i s present. Thus, care must be taken i n c l a s s i f y i n g l e v e l s two and three as some'-.conception of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s being formulated at l e v e l two, but i t i s not e x p l i c i t l y stated u n t i l l e v e l three. , 44. Table I: Levels of Understanding Categories Levels I II III IV a. knowledge of the X X X X s o c i a l structure b. knowledge of the s o c i a l X X X organization of space c. knowledge of concrete X X r e l a t i o n s d. knowledge of abstract X r e l a t i o n s 45. 3.4 The Interview 3.4.1 Respondents F i f t e e n c h i l d r e n were interviewed i n the f i n a l study, ten si x year olds and f i v e twelve and th i r t e e n year olds. The six year olds were a l l i n grade one while the twelve and thirteen year olds were either i n grade six or seven. Of the younger chi l d r e n six were female and four were male, while of the older ch i l d r e n one was female and four were male. To protect the anonymity of the respondents a l l of the names used i n th i s report are f i c t i c i o u s . A l l of the ch i l d r e n attended False Creek Elementary School, a r e l a t i v e l y small school with an enrollment of approximately one hundred students. The school i s located i n an urban se t t i n g , approximately two miles from the downtown core and i s part of the False Creek Housing Development. A l l of the c h i l d r e n were either l i v i n g i n the False Creek Development, or had done so u n t i l one or two months previous to the study. As the development was completed only three years p r i o r to the interviewing t h i s means that there i s a control for length of residence. Although no demographic data was formally c o l l e c t e d , informal interviews with the p r i n c i p a l suggest that the respondents form a r e l a t i v e l y hetero-geneous group. As the population of False Creek as a whole i s 'mixed' with respect to income, education and e t h n i c i t y (Vischer-Skaburskis Planners, 1980), i t is. assumed that the chi l d r e n interviewed i n t h i s study were also from a range of socio-economic, r e l i g i o u s and ethnic backgrounds. No information was gathered, however, regarding the previous r e s i d e n t i a l h i s t o r y of the respondents. As chi l d r e n who have grown up in single family housing would have had less exposure to semi-public spaces i n a r e s i d e n t i a l context and therefore would be less f a m i l i a r with the rules and conventions 46. governing use of that space, t h i s variable should be c o n t r o l l e d i n further studies. Also, as e t h n i c i t y may be relevant to the content of a c h i l d ' s conception of the rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation, i t should also be taken into consideration in future research. 3.4.2 Rationale for Age Groups Selected Although i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g and informative to study children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation at a l l ages, for the purposes of t h i s exploratory study i t was decided to l i m i t the age groups to two. This was done to allow for comparison within and between age groups. Six and twelve year olds were chosen as the two age groups for several reasons. F i r s t , the cognitive development l i t e r a t u r e indicated that there were considerable differences between the two age groups i n terms of le v e l s of cognitive development. The research indicated that most c h i l d r e n by six years of age are aware of context-specific rules and conventions although they don't understand' the s o c i a l function of those r u l e s ; by twelve or th i r t e e n years of age however most c h i l d r e n have developed r e l a t i v e l y abstract and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d schemes for understanding the s o c i a l rules and conventions and i n t e r p r e t i n g s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and events. By t h i s age most c h i l d r e n not only understand context-specific rules and conventions but they also understand something about the underlying s o c i a l functions of those rules and conventions. Second, the cognitive development l i t e r a t u r e indicated that c h i l d r e n younger than s i x years of age often are not able to verbalize t h e i r knowledge of s o c i a l rules and conventions due to lack of verbal s k i l l s (Piaget, 1929). Thus chi l d r e n younger than s i x years of age would have had d i f f i c u l t y with the interview format. It was decided therefore to l i m i t the lower age l e v e l 47. to c h i l d r e n s i x years of age. Third, i t was argued that children from False Creek Housing Development would be the most appropriate respondents for t h i s type of exploratory study as they would have had exposure to a range of spaces. Thus, as i t would have been more d i f f i c u l t and time-consumming to r e c r u i t the c h i l d r e n from the community through personal contacts, and as the support of the p r i n c i p a l at False Creek School had been obtained, i t was decided to r e c r u i t the c h i l d r e n from the school. Therefore, considering the cognitive development findings, and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of respondents, the two age groups, s i x and twelve year olds, were chosen. Due to the small number of grade seven c h i l d r e n enrolled in the school the older age group had to be extended to include both grades six and seven, or both twelve and thirteen year olds. 3.4.3 Recruitment After Obtaining the p r i n c i p a l ' s and the School Board's approval, l e t t e r s were sent home with the ch i l d r e n to s o l i c i t t h e i r parents' consent (see Appendix E). The response rate for both age groups was approximately t h i r t y percent. The low response rate could have been due to the fact that the study was c a r r i e d out i n the l a s t two weeks of June and therefore the parents: were inundated with school forms. This low rate could also be a t t r i b u t e d to the fact that False Creek i s a p r o t o - t y p i c a l housing development and thus i t s residents have been exposed to an inordinately high number of research projects. 3.4.4 Format of Interviews The interviews were tape recorded and lasted approximately t h i r t y minutes. This was corroborated i n the p i l o t study interviews. Children at four or f i v e years of age were not able to answer the questions. 4 8 . Each c h i l d was interviewed separately i n a small storage room in the school. Each c h i l d was c a l l e d for, at his or her classroom, greeted warmly and asked to accompany the interviewer to the interview room. Although some of the grade one c h i l d r e n seemed a l i t t l e nervous, they a l l seemed ,at ease once the interview got underway. The interviews took place i n a storage room which'was c l u t t e r e d with musical instruments and sports equipment. Two small chairs (placed about four feet apart) were used, and a table for the tape recorder. Children in both age groups seemed comfortable with the interview format and with the tape recorder. They seemed self-assured and were generally able and w i l l i n g to express themselves. The relaxed and informal s e t t i n g t y p i f i e d by the c l u t t e r e d storage room, may have diminished any fears the c h i l d r e n may have had about the interview. P r i o r to the beginning of the interview the c h i l d r e n were engaged in informal t a l k about the school. As the questions could be answered e a s i l y they provided a way of 'loosening' up or making the c h i l d f e e l more at ease. In many cases however t h i s exercise was unneccessary as the c h i l d r e n talked c o n t i n u a l l y . During the interview, questions were asked which required more than a "yes" or "no" answer, and i n a l l but one case t h i s format was success-f u l for e l i c i t i n g sentence type verbal responses (see Appendix A). In addition, in some cases, e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of the younger c h i l d r e they asked to draw a p a r t i c u l a r place to indicate where they l i v e d or played. This request seemed to come near the middle of the interview period, perhaps as a r e s u l t of the c h i l d ' s restlessness. However, i n these instances, the drawing served to provide a 'break' and also allowed the c h i l d to c l a r i f y h i s or her statements. One of the c h i l d r e n continually referred to events unrelated to the 4 9 . topic and i n several instances was reminded of the question and asked to give an answer. The length of the interview did not seem to be troublesome for the children although they did become more r e s t l e s s toward the end of the session. 3.5 The Interview Schedule The interview schedule consisted of questions r e l a t i n g to rules and conventions i n three d i f f e r e n t s o c i o - s p a t i a l contexts, the school, home and neighborhood. Within each of the contexts questions dealt with: 1..their awareness of rules and conventions and 2. t h e i r explanations and j u s t i f i -cations for those rules and conventions (see Appendix A for a copy of the interview schedule). Questions dealing with t h e i r awareness of rules and conventions included open-ended questions such as "Where can or can't you play i n your neighbor-hood?", or more structured questions such as "Can you go i n the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e any time you l i k e ? " . More s p e c i f i c questions were also asked including, for example, "When can you go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e ? " or "When can a policeman come into your house?". The second type of question involved asking the c h i l d r e n to explain why c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s or groups could c o n t r o l access to space, or a l t e r n a t e l y why some i n d i v i d u a l s were excluded (eg. "Why can't students go i n to the s t a f f room any time they l i k e ? " or "Why can't strangers come into your yard and play any time they l i k e ? " ) . The f i r s t type of question was meant to e l i c i t information regarding children's ideas about who controls access to space and a l t e r n a t e l y who can and cannot gain access to p a r t i c u l a r private, semi-private, and public spaces. Through these questions the children's conceptions of s o c i a l roles 50. and r e l a t i o n s h i p s including those of authority figures such as teachers, parents and policemen were explored. In addition the questions were intended to e l i c i t information about the children's conceptions of the s o c i a l d e f i -n i t i o n and use of private,semi-private and public space. The children's explanations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for the rules and con-ventions were used to assess t h e i r l e v e l of understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. Although the analysis of the lev e l s of understanding included reference to a l l three contexts, an emphasis was placed on the scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by the chil d r e n to make sense of rules and conventions applying to neighborhood space. The children's understanding of the concept of owner-ship, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between rules and conventions and ownership, and t h e i r explanations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for that r e l a t i o n s h i p , were focussed on in p a r t i c u l a r . 3.6 T r a n s c r i p t i o n and Ed i t i n g Procedures The tapes were transcribed verbatum, except i n two cases where the response to a p a r t i c u l a r question was excessively long and unrelated to the topic. Following the tran s c r i b i n g , the responses were categorized according to groups of s i m i l a r questions. The responses were then compared and contrasted i n order to discover s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n the form and content of the children's conceptions. The responses were chosen for i n c l u s i o n i n the text based on t h e i r representativeness as well as t h e i r usefulness as an i l l u s t r a t i v e t o o l . Overall, the children's verbatum accounts were used, even when the c h i l d ' s confusion or uncertainty made the response less comprehensible (see Appen-dices B and C for transcribed interviews). 51. 3.7 Physical C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the False Creek Development The False Creek Housing Development Group, a team of a r c h i t e c t s , planners and engineers, was hired by the C i t y of Vancouver in 1974 to develop a design concept for False Creek. The terms of reference were for a family-orientated, r e s i d e n t i a l community with a mixture of households, income l e v e l s , and tenures. The C i t y retained part of the s i t e for a public park. Thus, unlike most multiple family housing developments the design concept included a complete range of spaces, from public, to semi-private and private space. A number of co-operative and other non-profit sponsor groups were s o l i c i t e d to work with the Development Group. The design scheme and o v e r a l l s i t e plan for each 'enclave' was developed by architecture firms chosen by the sponsor group (see Appendix E for a map of False Creek). Each 'enclave' consists of a c i r c l e of dwelling units surrounded on the outside by public space and looking inward on a semi-private courtyard. The design guidelines which stated requirements imposed on the design of each of the i n d i v i d u a l enclaves s p e c i f i e d three types of open space. Land owned by the developers or 'public' space; neighborhood or semi-public space and private space. The language of the design guideline on the demarcation of public and semi-public space c l e a r l y implies a c u l t u r a l context that makes boundary symbols meaningful: Enclave gateway: A l l points of entry to an enclave should c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e between public and neighborhood ter-r i t o r y . It i s necessary to give a sense of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y to the enclave open space, to make i t belong to the residents. This i s not necessarily a 'gate' but a series of clues such as paving changes, archways, steps, t r e l l i s e s etc. that i n d i -cate a change of t e r r i t o r y , (p. 46) As False Creek Development includes a range of spaces i t provided an i d e a l s e t t i n g for i n v e s t i g a t i n g childrens conceptions of rules and conven-tions governing access to private, semi-private and public spaces. 52. Table II: Enclaves by Housing Type and Sponsor Group** lave Type of Housing Sponsor 1 66 units market r e n t a l Limited Dividend Program 66 units senior's r e n t a l Kiwanis Club 2 83 units market r e n t a l Limited Dividend Program 46 units senior's r e n t a l Bertha 0. Clarke Society 53 units market condominiums Stanzl Construction 3 30 units market condominiums Stanzl Construction 56 units c o n t r o l l e d leasehold Creek V i l l a g e market condominiums 4 48 units market condominiums Stanzl Construction 5 82 units Co-operative Housing False Creek Co-op 6 88 units Co-operative Housing False Creek Co-op 7 35 units market condominiums Univ e r s i t y Non-Profit 24 units for p h y s i c a l l y handi- (Now c a l l e d Marine Mews) capped 50 units c o n t r o l l e d leasehold Marine Mews condominiums 8 126 units non-profit rentals Netherlands Society **based on information reported i n the Vischer Skaburskis (1980) post-occupancy study. 53. IV Results 4.1 Introduction This chapter i s divided into two sections. In the f i r s t section the focus i s on i d e n t i f y i n g and i l l u s t r a t i n g two components of children's con-ceptions of s p a t i a l appropriation. These are: 1. conceptions of the s o c i a l structure (eg. s o c i a l roles and re l a t i o n s h i p s ) and 2 . conceptions of the s o c i a l organization of space (eg. location and meaning of boundaries). Although i t i s assumed that knowledge of the s o c i a l structure i s embedded in conceptions of the s o c i a l organization of space, an attempt i s made to look at the two components independently. The analysis of children's conceptions of the s o c i a l structure focusses on t h e i r ideas and b e l i e f s about who controls space, and a l t e r n a t e l y , who can gain access to private, semi-private and public spaces i n the school, neighborhood, and home. Children's conceptions of s o c i a l roles and r e l a t i o n ships including those of adults, and ch i l d r e n ; authority figures such as policemen and teachers, as well as strangers and friends are explored. The second section of th i s chapter contains an analysis of the ch i l d r e n explanations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. As mentioned e a r l i e r , i t was expected that children's con-ceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation would range from a concrete and undi f f e r e n t i a t e d understanding, to a more abstract and integrated understanding. The purpose of th i s second section i s to i l l u s t r a t e the various l e v e l s of understanding as displayed i n the children's responses, and by doing so explore the structure of the scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used at each l e v e l . Four l e v e l s of understanding were defined and the children's responses were used to i l l u s t r a t e each l e v e l . 54. The f i r s t l e v e l i s characterized by some understanding of s o c i a l roles with no understanding of the rules and conventions governing access to space. The second l e v e l by a context-specific understanding of rules and conventions with no understanding of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. The t h i r d l e v e l i s characterized by a r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l i s t i c and concrete understanding of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization o,-f space, while the fourth l e v e l i s seen as cons i s t i n g of a more abstract and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d conception of the rules and conventions displayed by an understanding of concepts such as power, status and ownership. An emphasis i n t h i s section i s on the children's conceptions of s p a t i a l appropriation i n the neighborhood, or rules and conventions governing access to private, semi-private and public property. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the analy-s i s i s concerned with the children's conceptions of ownership, the r e l a t i o n -ship between rules and conventions and ownership, and t h e i r explanations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for that r e l a t i o n s h i p . (As mentioned e a r l i e r , although other concepts such as "renting" were not excluded i n t e n t i o n a l l y , none of the ch i l d r e n mentioned r i g h t s associated with renting as opposed to owning.) 4.2 Components of an Understanding of Spatial Appropriation 4.2.1 Conceptions of the Social Structure I i . b e l i e f s about adults and chi l d r e n A l l of the respondents except one six year old were aware of the rules and conventions governing access to private spaces such as the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e and staffroom at school, t h e i r own houses, as well as semi-public spaces such as courtyards and public parks. Their conception of the s o c i a l roles of adults and c h i l d r e n was an e s s e n t i a l element of t h e i r understanding of the rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. As c h i l d r e n 55. act within an environment co n t r o l l e d by adults, whether at school >at home or i n the neighborhood, i t i s understandable that t h e i r conceptions of s p a t i a l appropriation c i r c l e around t h e i r b e l i e f s and ideas about the s o c i a l r o l e s of adults and r e c i p r o c a l l y , about themselves as ch i l d r e n i n r e l a t i o n to adults. The children's conceptions of adult and c h i l d r o l e s may be best i l l u s -trated by t h e i r conceptions of rules and conventions governing access to the staffroom and p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e i n the school. The a b i l i t y of the p r i n c i p a l and teachers to appropriate space i n the school contrasts sharply with the lack of a b i l i t y of students to appropriate space within that s e t t i n g . The chi l d r e n were aware of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n in s p a t i a l r i g h t s and often explained or j u s t i f i e d the rela t e d rules by r e f e r r i n g to what they believed to be the t y p i c a l behavior of adults and ch i l d r e n . In many cases the chil d r e n explained the fact that they weren't allowed to go into the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e or staffroom by sta t i n g that 'children' would behave inappropriately and thus should be excluded. Angela, for example, uses a ch a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t y p i c a l ' c h i l d i s h ' behavior to j u s t i f y the rule r e s t r i c t i n g access to that s e t t i n g . (Could you go to the staffroom to eat your lunch?) You can't (Why not?) Because i f you go up there you might s p i l l something and a l l the ch i l d r e n s p i l l milk up there and things. Angela 6 years old " S p i l l i n g milk" can be seen as an action which, i n common sense terms, displays awkwardness and lack of s o c i a l s k i l l s . . It i s also an action which i s often committed by ch i l d r e n . Hence Angela, who has probably been sanctioned for " s p i l l i n g milk", displays h e r - s o c i a l knowledge by f i r s t associating such action with 'children' and second, using that understanding to j u s t i f y rules 56 governing access to 'private spaces' within the school. Several of the ch i l d r e n extended t h e i r explanations beyond a d e s c r i p t i o n of the roles of e i t h e r c h i l d r e n or adults, to make a comparison between the two r o l e s . Their comparison d i r e c t s attention toward the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n -ship which e x i s t s between children and adults. Sara, for example, has some concrete ideas about the differences between the s o c i a l r o l e s of adults and c h i l d r e n and has used those ideas to construct an explanation for rules regarding access to the staffroom. (Why do you think a teacher could come and eat lunch i n your lunch room but you couldn't go and eat lunch i n the s t a f f -room?) Cause they are big people and l i t t l e c h i l d r e n can't cause they aren't big yet but when they get older and work ... Sara 6 years old Sara explains the d i f f e r e n t s p a t i a l r i g hts of c h i l d r e n and teachers by r e f e r r i n g to t h e i r physical appearance as well as t h e i r respective s o c i a l r o l e s . According to Sara 'big people' or adults work and are older, and thus can l e g i t i m a t e l y control access to space, while ' l i t t l e people' or children cannot. i i the manager Another s a l i e n t r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p for many of the c h i l d r e n i s that which ex i s t s between themselves and the apartment manager who enforces rules and conventions applying to semi-public spaces such as the courtyards i n t h e i r neighborhood. One s i x year old respondent gave a very c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n of the role the manager plays i n the enforcement of boundaries within a multiple family housing development. (What would happen i f you walked into the courtyard and started playing?) If the manager saw you he would t e l l you to go out, he would ask you why you were i n there and would ask you i f you were l i v i n g there. Shawn 6 years old 57. Shawn points to the role of the manager in enforcing rules and suggests that the rules do not apply to a l l people i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s . He suggests then that the rule works i n such a way that residence and purpose for entering the semi-public space are taken into account, i i i . s t rategies Just as ch i l d r e n a c t i v e l y construct s o c i a l knowledge, they also a c t i v e l y develop strategies for dealing with adults. Many of the ch i l d r e n discussed strategies they used for avoiding sanctioning by adults for breaking rules and transgressing boundaries. Carol, a twelve year old respondent, described how she and a f r i e n d dealt with an older woman who attempted to sanction them for transgressing a boundary. ... t h i s was a couple of days ago we were down i n the pond and you are allowed to go there but some people think you aren't. Like t h i s old lady she came up and I was playing i n my dingy and we f e l l and we started splashing and th i s lady started y e l l i n g at us. She started t e l l i n g us to get out and I t o l d her we didn't have to cause i t wasn't private property and there wasn't any sign saying we had to get out. She said you'd better get out except i n bad language, "I'm going to k i l l you." So I said, "Why don't you come i n aft e r us." and then she just l e f t . She was one of those old crabby ladies with black hats... Carol 12 years old The pond described by Carol i s located i n the public park (see Appendix E) It was not intended for swimming, judging from the shallowness of the water and the presence of ducks etc. There are not, however, any signs which indicate that there i s a formal rule p r o h i b i t i n g swimming. This segment of the interview i s i n t e r e s t i n g for two reasons. F i r s t , i t provides a de s c r i p t i o n of the respondent's conception of the s o c i a l r e l a -tionship which e x i s t s between h e r s e l f and the 'old lady'. According to Carol the old lady did not have the authority to sanction her for swimming in the pond. Because i t wasn't 'private property 1 Carol and her fr i e n d had a r i g h t to access and use of that space. 58. Second, Carol's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the woman as a "crabby old lady with a black hat" who y e l l s at ch i l d r e n , swears and threatens to k i l l them, is one which reminds me of si m i l a r conceptions of adults I maintained as a c h i l d . It could be that, i n a c h i l d ' s eyes any adult who attempts to invoke a negative sanction without the authority to do so w i l l be characterized as ' e v i l ' . One way for a c h i l d to j u s t i f y lack of adherence to the demands of an adult whether i t i s a manager, or a crabby old lady i s to descredit them by char a c t e r i z i n g them as deviant. Thus Carol's statement that the old lady "threatened to k i l l them" can be interpreted as an attempt to embellish the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n rather than a statement of fact. This quotation therefore displays not only a twelve year olds conception of a ru l e governing access to public property, but also the c r i t e r i a used to define and respond to authority i n adults. A playfulness regarding the transgression of boundaries was exhibited in a number of the older children's responses. In many cases the chi l d r e n stated that they were aware of the rules r e s t r i c t i n g access to a p a r t i c u l a r private space but ignored them "just for the excitement of getting caught". Here i s such an example. (Is there anywhere i n the school where you can't go any time .you l i k e ? ) ... you can't go to the boy's washroom but we always do. Sometimes we go running through from the back door to the front door because they are always unlocked at the back, so we run through screaming. Carol 12 years old In t h i s case the taboo surrounding sex-segregated washrooms probably made the penetration of that space e s p e c i a l l y t a n t a l i z i n g . The game of running through the washroom was obviously one which delighted t h i s respondent and probably the rest of hereSclassmates. This response also emphasizes the d i f f i c u l t y i n drawing the assumption 59. that c h i l d r e n transgress boundaries because they don't know they e x i s t . As was indicated i n the l i t e r a t u r e review, t h i s assumption i s used by arc h i t e c t s and planners as the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for buil d i n g higher fences and walls i n order to insure that ch i l d r e n recognize where boundaries are located. These arc h i t e c t s should not be surprised when the fences and walls are used as climbing apparatus and the boundaries are transgressed more frequently as they provide a more challenging opportunity for the ch i l d r e n to test t h e i r s k i l l s . i v s o c i a l construction of authority Another aspect of children's conceptions of the s o c i a l structure was th e i r ideas and b e l i e f s about the s p a t i a l r i g hts of various s o c i a l categories of persons including teachers, police o f f i c e r s and mail c a r r i e r s . The children were asked questions s p e c i f i c a l l y about the rules and conventions governing the s p a t i a l behavior of these s o c i a l categories of persons. As one indica t o r of 'authority' or 'power' i s the a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h and main-ta i n claims to space, or at least gain access to spaces which are for others ina c c e s s i b l e , the children's b e l i e f s about the s p a t i a l r i g h t s of policemen as opposed to mailmen, or teachers as opposed to students can be seen as displaying some aspects of t h e i r conceptions of authority. Most of the chil d r e n believed that policemen could come into t h e i r house any time they l i k e d but a mailman could not. While the younger c h i l d r e n did begin to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the s p a t i a l r i g h t s of these two s o c i a l cate-gories of persons, they did not indicate that the r i g h t s ' t o invade private space were rel a t e d to the occupational status of the policemen. Chris,, .for example j u s t i f i e s the d i f f e r e n t s p a t i a l priviledges as follows: (How about the mailman can he come in?) No (How about the policeman?) Yeah 6 0 (Why can the policeman but not the mailman?) Cause he's not a stranger (Why does that make a difference?) Cause he wouldn't s t e a l anything. Chris s i x years old This exerpt i l l u s t r a t e s a s i x year old's attempt to construct an explanation to account for the r e g u l a r i t i e s i n behavior as posed i n the question. Her understanding of the s o c i a l r o l e of the policeman i s li m i t e d , although she does assume that the policeman i s "honest" as he doesn't s t e a l . The Vancouver Police Force has been carrying out public r e l a t i o n s programs whereby po l i c e o f f i c e r s spend time t a l k i n g to school c h i l d r e n , and perhaps t h i s f a m i l i a r i t y with policemen l i e s behind Chris's statement that policemen are "not strangers". Also, Chris, along with most of the s i x year olds equated strangers with "bad people". Thus perhaps her statement that p o l i c e -men are "not strangers" simply implies that they are not "bad". This image would c e r t a i n l y be upheld in the media (eg. "cop" shows such as "Starsky and Hutch"). A number of the younger chi l d r e n did, however, recognize that the s p a t i a l rules which apply to various s o c i a l categories of persons are rela t e d to t h e i r occupation or s o c i a l r o l e . A number of ch i l d r e n explained that policemen can enter private spaces at w i l l because "they save people" or "they trap robbers". Most of the si x year old ch i l d r e n believed however that mailmen can't enter private household space because they are "people we don't know so they are strangers". Even though both the police o f f i c e r and the mail c a r r i e r may t e c h n i c a l l y be strangers to the c h i l d , the police o f f i c e r i s seen as having s p a t i a l r i g h t s which the mail c a r r i e r doesn't have. Perhaps conceptions about s p a t i a l r i g h t s are one aspect of the c h i l d ' s developing understanding of authority as an att r i b u t e of a s o c i a l r o l e . v.strangers Another j u s t i f i c a t i o n for s p a t i a l rules and conventions dealt with the perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 'strangers'. A l l of the s i x year olds characterized a stranger as a 'bad' person, and many of them used that image to explain why there are rules which prohibit access of strangers to private property: (Why do you think strangers can go i n the park but not on your porch?) ...They might s t e a l something, they might be wearing masks and pretending they are someone we know and they might make a mask and they get in a s t e a l things. Gunter 6 years old The s o c i a l categories of 'friends' or 'good guys' and 'strangers' or 'bad guys' seemed to be an important d i s t i n c t i o n for the younger c h i l d r e n , judging from the number of times the c h i l d r e n used i t to describe and explain rules and conventions. The d i s t i n c t i o n between the s o c i a l category of non-stranger or f r i e n d and stranger was less s a l i e n t for the twelve year olds. They did not r e f e r as often to the broad s o c i a l category of "stranger" but rather broke that category down into various sub-groups (eg. "other tenants", "prowlers"). This can be seen as an i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r more highly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d l e v e l of s o c i a l knowledge, v i . b e l i e f s about teachers and students There was a substantial difference between the older and younger ch i l d r e n ' conceptions of the s o c i a l roles of teachers and students. The older c h i l d r e n believed that the s p a t i a l r i g h t s of teachers and the p r i n c i p a l were related to t h e i r jobs and thus t h e i r s o c i a l status within the school setting. The younger c h i l d r e n on the other hand, gave much more personalized and concrete explanations for the teacher's a b i l i t y to appropriate space i n the school. Many of the younger c h i l d r e n , for example believed that they could go • to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e to "ask him something". These types of responses r e f l e c t t h e i r conceptions of the s o c i a l i d e n t i t y of the p r i n c i p a l and teachers. Angela, for example, conceives of the p r i n c i p a l as a benefactor rather than as a d i s c i p l i n a r i a n . (Can you go into the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e any time you l i k e ? ) No, only when youi-re si c k or when you get hurt, when you're outside and f a l l o f f things and he comes and gets you and puts you i n h i s o f f i c e and t e l l s you what happened. Angela 6 years old The older ch i l d r e n were more aware of the administrative r o l e of the p r i n c i p a l within the school and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between his s o c i a l r o l e and his a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h and maintain claims to space. Carol, for example, c l e a r l y understands the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p r i n c i p a l ' s r o l e and h i s a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l access to h i s o f f i c e : (Why do you think the p r i n c i p a l can come to your school classroom any time he l i k e s but you can't go into h i s o f f i c e any time you l i k e ? ) Because he's pretty busy and he has got a lock on h i s door r n and he has an extension l i n e that goes out into the h a l l . He sort of shuts people o f f from coming i n i f he wants to and he makes important phone c a l l s to the School Board and he finds out things l i k e f i e l d t r i p s and s p e c i a l lunches and things. Carol 12 years old Carol's response r e f l e c t s her more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and sophisticated under-standing of the s o c i a l structure within the school. She conceives of the p r i n c i p a l as a "busy man" who i s responsible for planning various school functions. She describes him i n ways that emphasize h i s superior s o c i a l status. For example, he has an extension l i n e and a lock on h i s door which enables him to co n t r o l access to h i s o f f i c e , and he makes important phone c a l l s to the School Board. While the s i x year olds seem to orient to the rules and conventions governing access to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e i n terms of "seeking help", the older c h i l d r e n often stated that a student had to have a "good reason", such as an appointment, to gain access to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e . 63. (Is there anywhere in the school where you can't go any time you l i k e ? ) In the staffroom and the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e , the roof ... (You said you weren't allowed to go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e any time you l i k e . ) No, we have to ask our teachers and we aren't allowed to use the phone unless we have a good reason. Ted 12 years old The differences i n o r i e n t a t i o n to the rules between the two age groups may be a t t r i b u t e d to the way the two groups of c h i l d r e n are a c t u a l l y treated by the p r i n c i p a l and teachers. Rather than simply having a more sophis-t i c a t e d understanding of rules and conventions, the twelve year old's responses may accurately r e f l e c t the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . The older c h i l d -ren may not be allowed to go into the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e unless they have an appointment orea "good reason", whereas access by younger c h i l d r e n may be less s t r i c t l y monitored or sanctioned. Based on informal observations from the outer o f f i c e where I waited for the p r i n c i p a l , t h i s explanation seems u n l i k e l y , however, given that the secretaries monitored the behavior of both age groups and questioned them about t h e i r purpose for entering the outer or "General O f f i c e " be-fore they got near the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e . Another explanation for the differences between the conceptions of the two age groups may be that while the older ch i l d r e n d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e and the outer o f f i c e the younger c h i l d r e n did not. Here i s one example of a s i x year old's explanation which c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s his rather u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d conception of the two spaces: (Why can the teachers go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e and the secretaries can, but not the kids?) Because she works there and the p r i n c i p a l he does too. Shawn 6 years old Although a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y speaking the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e and the outer o f f i c e are segregated by doors and walls, in the younger children's 64. mind the " p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e " included the space where the secretaries sat as well as the place where the p r i n c i p a l sat. The younger children's responses i n general r e f l e c t therefore, on one hand t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d conception of space, and on the other t h e i r personalized and concrete conception of the s o c i a l roles of the actors within the school s e t t i n g . The older c h i l d r e n i n contrast had a more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d understanding of both the organization of space within the school, and the s o c i a l roles of the various categories of persons. 4.2.2 Conceptions of the Social Organization of Space In the context of t h i s study the s o c i a l organization of space i s defined as a c u l t u r a l l y - s p e c i f i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e one geographical area from another. In North America the s o c i a l organiza-t i o n of space can be seen as c o n s i s t i n g of a heirarchy from private to semi-private and to public space. In the context of t h i s study private space i s defined as space which i s claimed by one i n d i v i d u a l . Private dwellings, interpersonal distance i n conversations, and the ' p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e ' at school, can be seen as examples of private space. Semi-private spaces are those which are defined and c o n t r o l l e d by a small group of people. Courtyards in the center of the enclaves are the primary type of semi-private space discussed in t h i s study. F i n a l l y , public spaces are those which are accessible to a l l s o c i a l categories of persons. The large public park i s the most important type of public space i n the False Creek Development. Knowledge of the appropriate d e f i n i t i o n and use of private, semi-private and public space involves 1. knowing who controls access to the space and r e c i p r o c a l l y who i s r e s t r i c t e d , 2. knowing where the boundaries are 65. located and 3. being aware of the conditions upon which access may be ob-tained, and the gestures such as knocking which are used to request access. (Although the knowledge of who controls access to space i s relevant to the s o c i a l organization of space, that issue was dealt with i n the f i r s t section and thus w i l l not be focussed on here) . The f i r s t issue which w i l l be explored i n th i s section i s children's conceptions of some of the conditions upon which access to private, semi-private and public space can be gained. i . conditions of access Many of the ch i l d r e n recognized that the purpose for entering a private space was an important condition under which legitimate access could be gained or denied. In a number of cases the c h i l d r e n reported that i n order to gain access to 'private property' they would have to know the occupant of that space. The chi l d r e n were aware of an i m p l i c i t s o c i a l rule which states that strangers are generally not allowed access to private space. One si x year old stated for example that anyone who l i v e s i n a house i s allowed access to that space. She argued that her uncle could come into her house because he " l i v e d there", while the mailman couldn't because he didn't l i v e there. Another condition described by the ch i l d r e n was the use of r i t u a l s such as knocking to gain access to private spaces such as a friend^s house or a stranger's house. As one si x year old c h i l d responded "you're not supposed to walk into people's houses without knocking, that's a r u l e " . Another s i x year old stated that access to his friend's house was contin-gent upon t h e i r i n v i t a t i o n : (Where can you go any time you l i k e i n your neighborhood?) Sometimes my friends l e t me and I go to t h e i r house. Conrad 6 years old 66. Another unique conception of the s o c i a l organization of space comes from a s i x year old who believed that access to and control of space should be based on r e c i p r o c a l agreement. She argued that i f the other c h i l d r e n come into her yard then she should be allowed to go into t h e i r yards. (What i f you wanted to play on someone's porch, would that be okay?) No, but i f they came to play there we could go and play at t h e i r place too, we should be able to. Pia 6 years old Several of the younger chi l d r e n did not believe that there were rules p r o h i b i t i n g access to private space but rather thought that r e g u l a r i t i e s i n s p a t i a l behavior were due to the v'personal preference'' of the actors. When asked i f the p r i n c i p a l could eat lunch where they (the students) ate lunch one s i x year old responded "yeah, no he has to stay in the o f f i c e " . When asked i f there was a rule or some other reason why he had to stay i n his o f f i c e she r e p l i e d "he doesn't have to stay in the o f f i c e a l l the time but he always l i k e s eating in the teacher's room". This response again suggests that the respondent does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the teachers room and the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e , and that the p r i n c i p a l ' s behavior could be explained by r e f e r r i n g to personal preference. Conrad, another s i x year old also explained why he couldn't go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e to eat lunch by s t a t i n g that "he never wanted to do that". Several of the c h i l d r e n based'their explanations for rules p r o h i b i t i n g access topprivate property on a f a i r l y pragmatic notion of personal preference; people r e s t r i c t access to private property because i t i s more convenient, less d isturbing or simply because they "want to". (Why do you think strangers can play i n the park but not on your porch?) Um because the park i s for everybody and people want to have private property and the porches are private property cause they wouldn't want to move the plants or anything. 67. (So they want to keep t h e i r plants?) Yeah and they don't want to break the fences or anything Shawn 6 years old Shawn also uses the concept of personal preference as a j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the r e s t r i c t i o n of access to private property, rather than the concept of owner-ship. He does however q u a l i f y h i s statements with the observation that people want to protect t h e i r 'possessions' such as plants and fences. His response displays h i s understanding of the s o c i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for rules and conventions p r o h i b i t i n g access to private property, i i s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of space i n conversations According to a number of anthropologists and environmental psychologists, interpersonal distance i s regulated by i m p l i c i t s o c i a l rules and conventions. One such r u l e regarding interpersonal distance i n our culture i s that strangers should maintain further distance than frie n d s . Studies have shown that i n d i v i d u a l s orient to t h i s rule i n so far as they back away when approached within three feet by a stranger. Hence questions were asked regarding the children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing interpersonal distance. The purpose of these questions was to discover f i r s t i f the c h i l d r e n could a r t i c u l a t e s o c i a l rules governing proxemic behavior and second to see i f t h e i r conceptions of these rules was consistent with the conception found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Here i s a quote which i l l u s -t rates a s i x year olds understanding of rules regarding interpersonal d i s -tances i n conversations. (Suppose somebody was coming to s e l l some r a f f l e t i c k e t s and your mom and dad wanted to buy some, where would they s i t ? ) They'd t a l k i n the l i v i n g room. (Would they s i t close together or far apart?) My mom and' dad would s i t close together and my mom and the stranger would s i t f a r . (Why i s that?) The strangers we don't know very w e l l . (What i f your f r i e n d came over and you were going to t a l k i n the l i v i n g room, where would you s i t ? ) 68. We would s i t beside each other and sometimes af t e r we get into a f i g h t we hug each other cause she's my best f r i e n d . (What i f somebody you didn't know came over would you s i t beside them?) No. (Have you ever ridden on a bus and sat beside somebody you didn't know?) Yes. (Why would you s i t beside someone you didn't know on a bus but not in your l i v i n g room?) Cause i f the seats are a l l f i l l e d up and thats the only place I can s i t you can s i t there. (Is that OK?) Yeah but I don't t a l k to the stranger I just look, but I don't l i k e s i t t i n g with strangers very much, I l i k e s i t t i n g with my father. Linda 6 years old In t h i s case Linda i s aware of rules governing proxemic behavior. Note that she stresses that her mom and dad would s i t close together but her momiand the stranger would s i t far apart. Her response displays an informal rule which regulates the physical proximity of unacquainted males and females. As numerous studies have demonstrated, same sex pairs of strangers tend to maintain closer interpersonal distance than an opposite sex pair of strangers ( H a l l , 1966; Altman, 1975). Whether or not such a convention i s s a l i e n t i n our culture, i t i s c l e a r that Linda i s aware of rules governing proxemic behavior of 'friends' as opposed to 'strangers'. When asked about seating arrangements on a bus Linda responded that i t was appropriate to maintain close interpersonal distance from a stranger as long as she didn't t a l k . This seems to be a very strong s o c i a l rule which operates in public settings such as buses. Linda also states, with a greater degree of openness than one would expect of an adult, that she doesn't l i k e s i t t i n g next to a stranger and would rather s i t beside her father. Because f u l l y s o c i a l i z e d members of our culture are expected to maintain ' c i v i l i n a t tention' (Goffman, 1963) or appear to be b l i n d to the actions of others i n a public s e t t i n g , i t would be less l i k e l y that an adult would admit to 69. being influenced p o s i t i v e l y or negatively by the proximity of a stranger. That i s , such an admission would constitute breaking a s o c i a l rule of proper action i n a public s e t t i n g . i i i s o c i a l versus a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e f i n i t i o n of space It was discovered during the study that some discrepancy existed be-tween the a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e f i n i t i o n of the semi-public space i n the housing enclaves and the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n and use of those spaces. According to the respondents, i n some cases the boundaries of the semi-public courtyards were c l e a r l y defined and defended by the residents of that enclave while i n other cases the courtyards were treated as public space i n that the boundary was neither c l e a r l y defined or defended. Children'from a l l enclaves could apparently gain access to and use these courtyards. The University Non-Profit Enclave (UNP) was one example where the courtyard was defined s o c i a l l y as semi-public space insofar as the non-residents, and non-resident c h i l d r e n i n p a r t i c u l a r , were prohibited from accessing or using the courtyard. The cour t y a r d s i i n the False Creek Co-op Enclaves (FC) on the other hand were used c o n s i s t e n t l y by non-resident adults and c h i l d r e n without sanctioning from residents. Although the differences between the two developments i n terms of a r c h i t e c t u r a l design or s o c i a l organization could be responsible for the differences i n the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of space, that issue w i l l be dealt with only i n so far as the ch i l d r e n discuss i t . Rather, what i s more important i n the context of th i s study, i s that the chi l d r e n were aware of the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of space i n t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l environment. In fact, as a non-resident and therefore an outsider, I was not aware of any discrepancy be-tween the s o c i a l and a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e f i n i t i o n of space u n t i l informed by the respondents. Also, judging from the ar c h i t e c t ' s diagrams of the enclaves 70. they also were not cognizant of the possible v a r i a t i o n i n s o c i a l treatment of semi-public space. A l l of the chi l d r e n indicated at some point that the FC courtyard was accessible to everyone, while access to the UNP courtyard was prohibited for non-residents. The boundary between the courtyard and the public space outside the enclave i n the UNP co-op was p h y s i c a l l y demarkated by signs and fences. The residents took an active role i n enforcing that boundary. According to the ch i l d r e n the courtyard of the FC co-op was accessible to non-residents and residents a l i k e , and there was no sign of a boundary surrounding that space. Here i s an example of a t y p i c a l response to questions about the two courtyards: (Who can go to the FC courtyard?) Anybody can go there. (Who owns the land there?) The People who own False Creek, but anybody can go anwhere that they,want except the places that say PRIVATE PROPERTY KEEP OUT! (Where are they?) They are down there, there i s a big sign there by the gates and they say private property. (Why aren't you allowed to go there?) Because the people who l i v e there, i f we go there we would be trespassing on private property cause you have to go ri g h t past these patios and these patio doors. Ted 12 years old Ted indicates that the FC courtyard i s s o c i a l l y defined as public space. He assumes that the residents of the co-op do not own the courtyard but rather that the people who own the ent i r e development also own the courtyard He spontaneously states that access to the private property areas i s res-t r i c t e d and indicated that on the map of False Creek that he was r e f e r r i n g to the UNP co-op. Ted accurately describes the boundary markers of the co-o courtyard. There are large private property signs, and i n contrast to most of the other enclaves, gates which enclose the courtyard area. He used the term 'private property' i n his j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the rules p r o h i b i t i n g access to the UNP courtyard. Although i n both co-ops a l l of the residents l e g a l l y have some in t e r e s t i n the courtyard space Ted assumed that i n one case the courtyard was 'private property' and the other 'public property'. Also Ted suggests that the a r c h i t e c t u r a l features of the UNP co-op :make i t a more 'private' place. He notes that the UNP co-op i s more private be-cause to gain access to the courtyard e n t a i l s walking past patio doors. To walk into the courtyard of the UNP involves walking by patio doors while i n the FC co-op the entrances are raised one l e v e l above the courtyard. Another respondent, a twelve year old boy who l i v e d i n the high r i s e apartments i n False Creek, was also aware of the difference between the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of the two courtyards. (Could you go into the FC courtyard?) Yeah (How come you can go there but not the UNP courtyard?) Well most of my friends l i v e over there,in the FC co-op. So i f any kids go there they know you are friends, even i f people go there cause i t s sort of a co-op - you're allowed to go into i t . Jim 12 years old Jim was aware of the s o c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between one courtyard and another but did not give an explanation to account for that d i s t i n c t i o n . The d i f f i c u l t y i n providing an explanation i s understandable given the complexity of the l e g a l i t i e s involved in' co-operative ownership. i v d e f i n i t i o n and use of semi-public space ' The children's perception of the difference between the U.N.P. enclave and False Creek courtyard (enclaves 5 and 6) was supported by a recent post-occupancy study completed by Vischer-Skaburskis Consultants (1980). These researchers interviewed approximately one h a l f of the residents of False Creek development and found that differences existed i n the use of the various courtyards. Some courtyards, such as Enclave 2 which included senior c i t i z e n and market condominiums, were not used by residents or non-residents. Only 6 7 o of the residents of enclave 2 reported that they used the courtyard as compared to 4 3 7 » of the residents of enclave 5 and 3 2 7 o of enclave 7. Two factors which were i d e n t i f i e d as having some bearing on th i s d i f -ference i n use were 1 . the management of enclave 2 enforced rules which prohibited use of the courtyards by residents and non-residents a l i k e , and 2 . the heavily landscaped character of the courtyard i n enclave 2 prohibited use. It was reported i n the Vischer study that the resident manager "turned the s p r i n k l e r on anyone who attempted to sunbathe i n the courtyard" and that the "Private Property - Do Not Enter" signs at the entrance to the courtyard had been erected by the manager. The only other enclave which attempted to control access to non-residents through the use of 'private property' signs was enclave 7 (the UNP enclave). '(The decision to put up the signs was made by the Council of Residents). According to Vischer et. a l . ( 1 9 8 0 ) the residents of enclave 7 put up the signs because they were "attempting to protect the e x c l u s i v i t y of t h e i r shared open space, much as they would i n a conventional s t r a t a t i t l e develop-ment, or they f e l t that the environmental design had f a i l e d to discourage access by the general p u b l i c " (p. 2 3 5 ) . However, the s e n s i t i v i t y of the residents of enclave 7 to i n t r u s i o n by chi l d r e n was c l e a r l y indicated i n some of the open-ended questions posed i n the Vischer study. For example i t was found that the residents of enclave 7 "perceived strangers i n the semi-public spaces" more often than residents of other enclaves. Only 8 7 o of the residents indicated that they never were aware of strangers, as opposed to 4 0 ? o i n enclave 5 , and 2 5 % in enclave 6 . Furthermore, a number of UNP residents f e l t that c h i l d r e n should be excluded from using the space i n the courtyard so that " i t would look nice 73. and be peaceful". Four of the residents indicated that they wanted to erect fences or somehow r e s t r i c t access by other residents, and p a r t i c u l a r l y non-resident c h i l d r e n . In enclaves 5 and 6 (False Creek Co-op) most of the residents were not bothered by strangers i n the courtyard. Five of the residents i n enclave 5 wanted to make the courtyard more usable for c h i l d r e n . None of the residents commented on the perceived i n t r u s i o n of the courtyard by resident or non-resident c h i l d r e n . i v l o c a t i o n and meaning of boundaries A t h i r d element of knowledge of the s o c i a l organization of space i s t t h e l o c a t i o n and meaning of boundaries. Bob, a t h i r t e e n year old who l i v e s i n the UNP co-op describes how the boundaries of the private space are defined and defended in h i s enclave we have private gardens, they have fences around four feet high. (So that i s private there?) Yes thats t h e i r very own, and the whole thing i s owned (So can anyone who l i v e s i n your section go into those gardens?) No cause that's p r i v a t e l y owned by the i n d i v i d u a l . (What would happen i f somebody didn't know and walked into t h e i r garden?) Not much i f they didn't know, they would say sorry t h i s i s private property. (Are there rules about that i n your section?) There aren't any rules exactly, none that are posted or anything. Bob 13 years old Bob seems to have a clear idea about the location and meaning of boundaries surrounding the private space of the gardens. The fences are used to demar-kate that boundary and negative sanctions by the 'owners' are used to enforce that boundary. The s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of public space i s another aspect of children's conception of s p a t i a l appropriation. A l l of the c h i l d r e n believed that the park was 'public space' i n that access to the park was not r e s t r i c t e d . Most 74. Table 3 - Enclaves by Building Type and Landscape Enclave Building Type Landscape -eight storey apt. bui l d i n g -three storey senior's apartment buil d i n g -six storey market r e n t a l apartment -three storey senior's apartment bldg. -high r i s e condominium -nine townhouse condominiums -one high r i s e apartment building -townhouses large grass area with path across i t three landscaped areas, some heavily planted treed area and grassy open area small landscaped area, with trees and shrubs 6* •townhouses and three storey apartment bldgs. at end of enclave -townhouses -townhouses -twenty-four unit residence f o r handicapped -townhouses and three storey apartments small landscaped play area with equipment, road and parking area large balconies & walkways children's play area, road and parking l o t grassy area, playground landscaped area with fountain and walkways landscaped area and small playground * False Creek Enclaves (IC) '>** University Non-Profit Enclave (UNP) of the younger ch i l d r e n either did not know who 'owned' the park, or believed that the "manager of the school" owned i t , or the "workmen" or the people who b u i l t False Creek owned i t . Their ideas about ownership can be understood i f we consider that the only people they probably observed r e g u l a r l y occupying that space were the workmen. As the school i s located r i g h t beside the park i t i s also understandable that i f a c h i l d assumed that ownership was associated with occupancy, that the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the manager of the school should extend to the park. Many of the c h i l d r e n believed that whoever occupies a space also controls access to that space. One of the ramifications of such a b e l i e f i s that no one should be allowed to permanently occupy public space. Although the c h i l d r e n believed that temporary occupation of the park was permissible, permanent occupation such as building a house, was "against the r u l e s " . (Can anybody go to the park that wants to?) Yeah. (Could I go there to play?) Yeah. (What i f I wanted to b u i l d a house there could I?) No cause you have to f i n d a house f i r s t and some people are moving, i f you b u i l d a house there people w i l l get mad and i f you make a tent that's ok at night. (Why i s i t ok to have a tent at night?) Cause i f you don't l i v e there and just see how i t looks l i k e with a tent everything outside, people dot'that, I never would do that. (Why don't you think I could b u i l d a house on the park?) Because maybe people want to come and s i t and too much people go there and people go there on bikes and they might run over cause bikes are too heavy on the grass. Angela 6 years old Angela displays her knowledge of the soci a l - o r g a n i z a t i o n of space i n her explanation for rules p r o h i b i t i n g b u i l d i n g a house on public property. She argues that people "would get mad i f " someone b u i l t a house i n the park and then suggests that there wouldn't be enough room for people to " s i t on the grass" i f a house were b u i l t there. She i s aware that the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of the park i s that of public space and therefore that a l l s o c i a l categories of persons should have equal opportunities for access to that space. 4.3 Levels of Understanding 4.3.1 Introduction In t h i s section the children's responses are categorized according to the proposed model. The model consists of four l e v e l s of understanding ranging from a r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l i s t i c , concrete, and un d i f f e r e n t i a t e d under-standing at the f i r s t l e v e l , to a more complex, abstract, and integrated understanding at the fourth l e v e l . The f i r s t l e v e l i s characterized by some knowledge of the s o c i a l structure with no knowledge of the rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. The second l e v e l consists of a context s p e c i f i c understanding of rules and conventions with no understanding of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. The t h i r d l e v e l involves a r e l a t i v e l y concrete understanding of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space with a more d i f f e r e n -t i a t e d understanding of each component. F i n a l l y , the fourth l e v e l involves a more abstract understanding of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space displayed by knowledge of concepts such as power, status and ownership according to which the two components are i n t e r r e l a t e d . It should be noted that the proposed model may apply to c h i l d r e n under the age of s i x and over t h i r t e e n . It i s l i k e l y that c h i l d r e n at four or f i v e years of age have a l e v e l one understanding and that c h i l d r e n at one or two years of age may have less knowledge of the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space, and therefore would have what could be c a l l e d a l e v e l 0 understanding. Furthermore i t may be that c h i l d r e n up to f i f t e e n years of age or older have a l e v e l four understanding or some v a r i a t i o n on that theme. The four stages were proposed only as an exploratory t o o l to allow for the analysis of q u a l i t a t i v e differences i n the scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by c h i l d r e n , within and between age groups. The lev e l s were constructed based on the assumption that a l l of the children's responses would be c l a s s i f i a b l e according to the model, and furthermore that there would be only a few, i f any, cases at l e v e l one. As mentioned i n the introduction, the analysis i n t h i s section w i l l focus on children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation i n the neighborhood. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the focus w i l l be on 1. children's understanding of the rules and conventions governing access to 'private property' 2. the r e l a t i o n s h i p between those rules and the concept of ownership, and 3. t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n s and explanations for that r e l a t i o n ship. Although some data regarding children's conceptions of rules and conventions operating i n the school or home w i l l be used to supplement t h i s analysis the main concern w i l l be with the children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing access to private property. 4.3.2. Level 1 As was expected, most of the si x year olds and a l l of the twelve year olds displayed some knowledge of the rules and conventions governing access to private, semi-private and public spaces. One of the si x year olds did not, however, display i n her responses that she was aware that there were rules which prohibited access to private household space. (Who can come into your house any time they l i k e ? ) Anybody. (What about someone you don't know, could they come i n any time they l i k e ? ) 78. Yeah i f they were my friends or my mom's friends or i f I just met them. (What i f they were somebody that nobody knew?) I could just become friends with them and t e l l them they could come i n . Cindy 6 years old Cindy displays her confusion about the rules and conventions i n her statement that "anyone" could come into her house followed by her sugges-t i o n that only people who are " f r i e n d s " could come i n . She goes on to say that even someone whom she just met q u a l i f i e d as a f r i e n d , and thus could be " i n v i t e d " i n . Thus, although Cindy seems to r e l a t e the rules and conventions gover-ning access to household space to c e r t a i n s o c i a l categories of persons (e.g. friends can come i n , people who are not friends cannot), she appears to be confused about the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of friendship. She i s uncertain about f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between various le v e l s of intimacy an rules and conventions governing access to private space. Although t h i s interview only provides a limited amount of information i t does suggest that not a l l s i x year olds necess a r i l y have gathered enough information about the s o c i a l structure to enable them to comprehend s o c i a l rules and conventions governing access to private, and semi-private space. 4.3.3 Level II Eight out of ten of the six year olds, and one. of the twelve year olds were c l a s s i f i e d as having a l e v e l two understanding. This means that while these respondents had developed some ideas about the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space, they did not display an understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two components. The analysis focusses on the children's j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for rules and conventions governing use and access to "private property". 79. In North America, a property-owner i s one category of person who has the le g a l r i g h t to control access to and use of space. (Although "renters" also have the le g a l r i g h t to r e s t r i c t access to t h e i r dwelling while they are a tenant!, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between "renting" and ri g h t s to control access i s very complex and w i l l not be dealt with here.) Thus, (in common sense terms j u s t i f i c a t i o n for rules and conventions p r o h i b i t i n g access to 'private pro-perty' would be based on the p r i n c i p l e of ownership. Ninety percent or 9 out of 10 of the si x year old chil d r e n i n the f i n a l study did not have a c l e a r understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between rules and conventions and ownership. Their explanations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for the rules and conventions display t h e i r attempt to construct a scheme of int e r p r e t a t i o n from which to understand s p a t i a l appropriation. When asked where they weren't allowed to go i n t h e i r neighborhood they r e p l i e d "we're not allowed to go to the 'private property houses'", that 'only friends and family can enter our house without knocking", and "anyone i s allowed to play i n the park but only people we know can play on our porch". When asked why t h i s was the case they either stated they didn't know or re-ferred to the s o c i a l or physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the se t t i n g . As was discussed i n the f i r s t section of the analysis, a common expla-nation for rules and conventions governing access to private property dealt with the s o c i a l r o l e of the actor or the physical arrangement of the environ-ment. Many of the c h i l d r e n believed that strangers weren't allowed access to t h e i r house because "they might s t e a l things", and that they weren't allowed to go into the neighbour's house at w i l l because the "door was always locked" or because the "fence was too high". The following segment of an interview i l l u s t r a t e s the confusion experienced by many of the younger respondents, about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between rules and 80. conventions and ownership. Although Linda i s aware of the rules and con-ventions governing access to private property i n her neighborhood, and has some understanding of the concept of ownership, she has d i f f i c u l t y integrating these components i n order to construct an i n t e r n a l l y consistent scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . (Who owns the park?) The person who b u i l t i t , the whole thing belongs to them. (So can just those workmentplay there or can anybody play there?) Anybody. (Why do you think i t i s OK for strangers to play in the park but not on your porch?) Because i t s somebody's porch and the park belongs to anybody (Why does that make a difference?) Its somebody's house and you have to ask before you can play on other people's houses, there might be something d e l i c a t e and i f you t i p i t over i t might break (Could the workmen or whoever owns the park t e l l people to get out?) No, they never say things l i k e that, they l e t anybody play in the park, just anybody. (Why can the p r i n c i p a l t e l l people they can't come into h i s o f f i c e but the workmentdon't ever t e l l people not to come into the park?) Cause the p r i n c i p a l owns his o f f i c e and the people don't own the park, the people that play there don't own the park. Linda 6 years old This personalized and concrete conception of ownership was common throughout many of the younger children's responses. Like many of the c h i l d r e n , Linda seemed to base her ideas about ownership on her observation of who r e g u l a r l y occupied that space. It could be that she had never observed any p a r t i c u l a r person r e g u l a r l y occupying the park besides the workmen^ and thus she assumed that they must 'own' i t . Linda's confusion seems to originate with the lack of consistency between what she has observed and what she knows about 'ownership'. She i s aware that strangers cannot f r e e l y enter private property, while they can use the park at w i l l . She has observed that the p r i n c i p a l r e s t r i c t s access to h i s o f f i c e , while the workmen never sanction people for entering the park. She also believes that ownership i s associated with occupancy and thus the p r i n c i p a l 81. must 'own' his o f f i c e and the workmen must own the park. Although each of the components of her scheme i s l o g i c a l l y based and i n t e r n a l l y consistent when forced to integrate the elements i n her explanation, she comes up against the inconsistencies and becomes confused. A number of features of Linda's response were t y p i c a l of many of the children's responses. The f i r s t common feature was the concreteness of the children's conception of ownership. Some of the c h i l d r e n believed that anyone who "grew the grass" owned that space, while others argued that owner-ship was contingent upon l i v i n g next to a piece of land or h a b i t u a l l y using that space. Most of the children's concept of public ownership centered around the notion that nobody owned that space, or "anybody" owned i t . It could be that these c h i l d r e n understood much more about the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of public space but were unable to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r ideas due to t h e i r l i m i t e d verbal s k i l l s . They may have used words such as "nobody" and "anybody" instead of more abstract concepts such as "the p u b l i c " . Another s i x year old respondent had a somewhat cl e a r e r understanding of the concept of ownership but did not appear to understand the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the term 'private property' and ownership. (Who owns the grass i n the middle of your place, the courtyard?) Everybody who l i v e s here. (What i f somebody from another enclave wanted to play there?) They couldn't cause i t s private. (What does "p r i v a t e " mean?) It's 'private property' and the manager l i v e s r i g h t here, i f he sees you, you aren't allowed to f o o l around with the hose. (Why i s i t that nobody can come i n i f i t s private property?) Well l i k e you know that kind of l i t t l e thing with a clowns head and you turn the hose, well you can't do that. (So other people can't come in because...) They can't come i n cause some people might want to s i t there, there i s a l i t t l e entrance here and a gate r i g h t here and ... (What's the difference between the courtyard and the park?) The whole thing here i s private property and park i s n ' t 82. (What i s the park then?) Just a place where you play at recess (Can anybody go to the park?) Yeah. Frank 6 years old Based on t h i s segment of the interview i t i s c l e a r that Frank i s developing an understanding of the concept of 'ownership 1, of rules and conventions and of the meaning of the term' 'private property'. He knows for example that a l l of the residents of the enclave own the courtyard, that there are rules and conventions which p r o h i b i t access of non-residents to the courtyard, and that anyone can go to the park. He also believes that the courtyard i s 'private property 1 while the park i s c a l l e d something d i f f e r e n t . Although Frank seems to have developed an understanding of the various components, he has not yet discovered how they a l l f i t together. He, for example does not appear to recognize that the term 'private property' has anything to do with ownership. The term 'private property' i s used as a l a b e l to indicate places where he and others are not allowed to go. He states that the courtyard i s 'private property' and then goes on to describe a hose i n the courtyard which c h i l d r e n are not allowed to play with. He i s aware of a c o n t e x t - s p e c i f i c r u l e which prohibits access to the courtyard, but does not appear to be aware of a more general s o c i a l rule governing access to • semi-public space. Thus, he i s able to use the term 'private property 1 to describe places to which access i s r e s t r i c t e d but does not understand that there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between rules and ownership, or between the term private property and ownership. Many of the c h i l d r e n argued that they could p r o h i b i t access to t h e i r porch or t h e i r front yard because i t was 'private property', although they could not give an explanation for that b e l i e f . It was c l e a r from t h e i r responses that they did not have a f u l l understanding of the concept of 83. ownership. They did not understand f i r s t that 'private property' was p r i -vately owned land, and second that i n d i v i d u a l s and groups have a l e g a l r i g h t to c o n t r o l access to land which they own. The following segment of an interview with a s i x year old i l l u s t r a t e s these two gaps i n her understanding of s p a t i a l appropriation. (Why can kids you don't know play on your porch?) They can't. It's not t h e i r property. (Why would i t make a difference i f i t wasn't t h e i r property?) I don't know. (How do you know i t s not t h e i r property?) Cause they l i v e somewhere else . (How do you know where your property i s ? ) Cause they l i v e there and I l i v e on my own property, i f they move from t h e i r property then i t s t h e i r own property. Sara 6 years old Here Sara argues that she can control access to her 'property' but does not j u s t i f y those r i g h t s i n terms of ownership. Later i n the interview she again attempts to j u s t i f y her ri g h t to con t r o l access to her back yard and we get a cl e a r e r idea of her conception of ownership and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between ownership and r i g h t s to control access. (At your house do you have any grass?) It's i n the back. (Whose property i s that?) It's our property. (What i f some kids you didn't know wanted to play there, would i t be a l r i g h t ? ) They could step on i t . (You couldn't t e l l them to go away?) No cause I didn't grow the grass. Sara 6 years old One element i n t h i s response which i s t y p i c a l of many of the other responses i s that children's conceptions of rules and conventions, and the re l a t i o n s h i p between rules and conventions and ownership, is^much c l e a r e r with respect to space closer to the dwelling. The respondents seemed much more c e r t a i n about rules governing access to t h e i r house than rules and conventions governing access to the porch or the courtyard. Furthermore, 84. they believed, as Sara did, that the occupant of a dwelling has a r i g h t to co n t r o l access to a porch but not necessarily the back yard or the property surrounding the dwelling. Thus, i t could be that a c h i l d ' s conception of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation becomes more confused the further she moves from the dwelling. This would be expected as c h i l d r e n range of experience originates i n the dwelling and with age expands outward. Thus, younger c h i l d r e n should be much more f a m i l i a r with the rules and con-ventions applying to household space than space i n the neighborhood. Also, considering the design of multiple family housing, and the ambiguity of boundaries separating semi-public from public and private space, i t i s not sur p r i s i n g that the children's conceptions of boundaries becomes more con-fused with greater distance from the dwelling. Only one of the twelve year old respondents indicated e x p l i c i t l y that he did not know i f there was any r e l a t i o n s h i p between the term 'private property' and ownership. He stated that he was not allowed to go i n any places which were "private property". However, when asked how he d i f f e r e n -t i a t e d private from non-private property, he r e p l i e d that he looked for sign that say "Private Property - Keep Out". (What does the word private property mean?) I don't know, i f you take a simple word l i k e private property you can't think of anything that means that. (Does i t have anything to do with ownership?) I don't know, that's a tough problem. (How do people know what i s private property and what isn't?) Usually there i s signs up saying private property and i f you see something that says "park" there's a sign so you know you can go there. Jim 12 years old In other sections of the interview Jim suggested that the government owns the park, i n d i v i d u a l s own each townhouse or dwelling and that members of the cooperatives own the courtyards. He also believed that anyone could go to the park. He did not however understand that there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p 85. between ownership and therrules and conventions and thus his response was c l a s s i f i e d as a l e v e l two understanding. 4.3.4 Level III The response of one of the s i x year olds and one of the older c h i l d r e n f a l l into t h i s category. At t h i s l e v e l of understanding the ch i l d r e n have a r e l a t i v e l y concrete and s i m p l i s t i c understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. It i s at t h i s l e v e l that a generalizable understanding of s o c i a l rules and conventions i s f i r s t displayed. L i z , one of the s i x year olds had a well-integrated scheme of i n t e r -pretation. She believes, for example, that people own houses that they l i v e i n , that a l l the people who l i v e i n the enclave own the courtyard, and that 'everybody' owns the park. She was also aware that there are rules which proh i b i t access to 'private property 1, that people are only allowed to go i n the courtyard of the UNP co-op i f they know someone who l i v e s there, and that private property i s land that i s owned. F i n a l l y , she i s aware that a property owner has the l e g a l r i g h t to enforce rules and thereby control access to private property. (Where aren't you allowed to go i n your neighborhood?) In the 'private property' houses, you're not allowed to go there only i f you're v i s i t i n g someone who l i v e s there. (Is that a rule?) Yes. (Who made up that rule?) The people that own the houses. (What does that mean private property?) It means that i t i s owned, private property, you can't go on i t unless we say you can. (Why do you think strangers can go to the park but they can't come and play on your porch?) Because everybody owns the park, but not everybody owns the porch. (Is there any reason why people make up rules l i k e that?) For people's safety, cause the person who comes on your porch might want to s t a r t a f i r e or something. L i z 6 years old 8 6 . This response i s c l a s s i f i e d as a l e v e l three understanding because L i z f i r s t d istinguishes between owners and non-owners, i n terms of t h e i r a b i l i t y to es t a b l i s h and maintain claims to space; second she distinguishes between private, semi-private and public property i n terms of rules regarding access, and t h i r d she recognizes that ownership underlies the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. She understands that i t i s because an i n d i v i d u a l owns a space that she i s able to enforce rules and thereby e s t a b l i s h and maintain control over that space. Although L i z does have some understanding of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space, that understanding appears to be concrete and s i m p l i s t i c . When pressed to j u s t i f y her b e l i e f that rules and conventions p r o h i b i t access to private property, L i z reverts to her conception of the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 'strangers'. She argues that rules and conventions are established for people's safety rather than for any s o c i a l purpose. A l e v e l three understanding i s one in which the respondent i s aware that, i n the context of rules governing access to private property, ownership underlies the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l and s p a t i a l organization. The extensiveness of t h e i r understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between ownership and rules and conventions i s what distinguishes a t h i r d from a fourth l e v e l of understanding. At a t h i r d l e v e l , the respondent may j u s t i f y rules p r o h i b i t i n g access to private property by r e f e r r i n g to the fact that people "don't own those places" however they are unable to explain why ownership i n our society l e g i t i m i z e s c o n t r o l over space. For example, although Carol indicated that people own a space and thus control access to that space her j u s t i f i c a t i o n did not have anything to do with a l e g a l r i g h t to do so. (Are the apartments private property?) 87. Yeah because i t s people's property, i f you were to go up the s t a i r s everybody i n the whole bui l d i n g owns those s t a i r s and you are only allowed to go up there i f people say you can. (Why i s that?) Because some people own the top f l o o r and somebody owns the roof and people downstairs own the bottom f l o o r . Carol 12 years old This segment of the interview suggests that although Carol may have developed some concrete understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between ownership and rules and conventions, her understanding of the s o c i a l basis and function of that r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s t i l l somewhat unclear. Although c h i l d r e n displaying t h i s l e v e l of understanding did not have a f u l l y developed understanding of how ownership underlies the i n t e r r e l a t i o n -ship between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space, a number of them did r e f e r to the concept of 'privacy' to explain or j u s t i f y rules and conventions. For example, instead of arguing that the r i g h t to control access to space i s associated with ownership, they argued that i n d i v i d u a l s can r e s t r i c t access to private and semi-private spaces to preserve t h e i r 'privacy'. Using the concept of privacy to j u s t i f y rules and conventions governing access to 'private property' i s not inaccurate but rather displays another aspect of knowledge which i s part of a c u l t u r a l scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . But, i n the context of rules and conventions governing access to private property or spaces over which the inhabitant has some l e g a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , the use of the concept of privacy to j u s t i f y the occupant's a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h and maintain claims to that space, i s less accurate than the use of the concept of ownership. The following quote suggests that the concept of ownership would have had more explanatory power than privacy i n the context of s p a t i a l appropriation i n the neighborhood: 88. (Can people go on anybody else's porch any time they want to?) They can go on anybody's s t a i r s but not on anybody else's porch. (What's the difference between the s t a i r s and the porch?) The s t a i r s lead up to the porch and you can just s i t on the s t a i r s but you can't exactly climb up and s i t on the top s t a i r and go hee hee. (Why not?) Cause i t s private property and you might disturb people who are inside and i f you stood in the middle i t would be OK. Carol 12 years old This respondent believes that the rules governing access to private property are related to the establishment and maintenance of 'privacy'. She argues that she i s allowed to s i t on the s t a i r s but not on the porch because that would disturb people. While she may have a f a i r l y accurate view of the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of space i n her p a r t i c u l a r neighborhood or enclave, t h i s under-standing would not necessarily allow her to generalize to other setting.where rules and conventions governing access to private property were s t r i c t l y enforced. Had she indicated that there were both l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n s of space and s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n s , which often time did not correspond, then the response would have been c l a s s i f i e d as l e v e l four. 4 . 3 . 5 Level IV Four of the older respondents displayed a l e v e l four understanding of s p a t i a l appropriation. They understood not only that ownership was re l a t e d to the a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h and maintain c o n t r o l over space, but also that ownership gave an i n d i v i d u a l the l e g a l l y and s o c i a l l y sanctioned r i g h t to con t r o l access to space. To q u a l i f y as a l e v e l four response they must have included i n t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n reference to the l e g a l r i g h t s associated with ownership. Also, at t h i s l e v e l many of the respondents distinguished between the s o c i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for control over access to 'private space' and the 89. l e g a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for control over access to 'private property'. They recognized that the r i g h t of the p r i n c i p a l to appropriate 'private space' i n the school was re l a t e d to h i s s o c i a l r o l e within that s e t t i n g , whereas the appropriation of private property was re l a t e d to 'ownership' or the equivelent forms of tenure. Two of the older respondents gave very suscinct j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for rules and conventions governing access to private property. (Do you think there are any rules about private property?) No, i t s your own thing, l i k e i f you're i n charge, l i k e i f you owned your house i f somebody came i n , or your back yard, you have the l e g a l r i g h t to t e l l them to leave. Ted 12 years old (What i f some kids you don't know wanted to come and play i n your front yard would that be OK?) I'd say no, because i t s p r i v a t e l y owned, they could go i n there but i t s sort of l i k e breaking a law, sort of but not as bad here. (What i f they asked you why they couldn't go there, what would you say?) I'd say because i t s not yours, i t s ours, we bought i t and we have a l l of the r i g h t s to i t . Bob 13 years old These two segments display the increasing complexity and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Although the respondents may argue i n i t i a l l y that they are allowed to e v i c t strangers from t h e i r back yard because i t i s 'private property', they also can state, when pressed, that t h e i r action would be legitimate because ownership i s associated with l e g a l r i g h t s to con t r o l access to space. Thus, i t appears that a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n originates with l i m i t e d knowledge of s o c i a l roles and develops into a catalogue of s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c rules and conventions. With age and experience the c h i l d ' s understanding of the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space becomes more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and eventually the c h i l d begins to recognize and understand the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l and s p a t i a l structures. It may be 90. at t h i s point that the scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can be used to generalize from a f a m i l i a r s e t t i n g to an unfamiliar one. The construction of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n does not stop at t h i s point however. Rather what seems to be the case i s that during adolescence and perhaps into adulthood, an i n d i v i d u a l develops a much more comprehensive and complex system of b e l i e f s , attitudes and ideas about s p a t i a l appropriation. Not only w i l l the adolescent become aware of the l e g a l ramifications of ownership v i s a v i s the establishment and maintenance of s p a t i a l claims, but he or she w i l l also have developed a whole set of ideas and b e l i e f s to j u s t i f y the general:: r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l and s p a t i a l structure. The following response w i l l i l l u s t r a t e the beginning of some of those b e l i e f s and ideas. (What do you think are some of the differences between the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e and your back yard?) I guess h i s o f f i c e , he doesn't own i t , but he i s given i t to use so I guess he's an owner for part time, and our back yard for instance i t s people that stay there that own i t and they own i t u n t i l they have to s e l l i t . (Well why does the p r i n c i p a l t e l l people to get out of his o f f i c e ? ) Oh because he's the p r i n c i p a l of the school and usually the p r i n c i p a l i s i n c o n t r o l . Tom 13 years old In some sense Tom takes the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space i n the school and neighborhood for granted. He i s beginning to associate s o c i a l status with the a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h and maintain control over space. This response displays h i s knowledge and understanding of a pervasive c u l t u r a l rule governing s p a t i a l appropriation, and foreshadows a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n which the re-l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space i s seen as a 'natural' or universal human condition. 91. Table IV. Levels of Understanding by Age Groups Age Groups Levels of Understanding I II I I I IV 6 year olds 1 8 1 0 10 12 & 13 year olds 0 1 1 3 5 Totals 1 9 2 3 n=15 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Components of a Scheme of Interpretation The purpose of t h i s study was to explore the form and content of c h i l d r e n conceptions of rules and conventions which govern the process of s p a t i a l appropriation. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the study was aimed at 1. i d e n t i f y i n g and i l l u s t r a t i n g two components of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by c h i l d r e n to comprehend and act according to those rules and conventions, and 2. to de-velop and test a model of such a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . An i n i t i a l review of the s p a t i a l behavior l i t e r a t u r e revealed that s p a t i a l appropriation was a common, i f poorly-understood feature of human-environment r e l a t i o n s . Although there were several studies which dealt with the process by which claims to space were established and maintained, l i t t l e information was available regarding how i n d i v i d u a l s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d r e n , were able to comprehend and act according to the complex system of s o c i a l rules and conventions which governed that process. G. H. Mead's theory of ' j o i n t action', and i n p a r t i c u l a r h i s concept of a 'scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' served as a t h e o r e t i c a l s t a r t i n g point i n the construction of a model of children's conceptions of the rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. A scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was defined as a system of ideas and b e l i e f s about how space i s or should be used. As the study involved chil d r e n , the developmental psychology l i t e r a t u r e was then consulted. It was found that the s o c i a l cognition studies were consistent with Mead's t h e o r e t i c a l framework. In both l i t e r a t u r e s i t was agreed that i n d i v i d u a l s construct schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rather than highly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d 'catalogues' of co n t e x t - s p e c i f i c rules and conventions, to deal with the.complex processes of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . The s o c i a l cognition studies suggested that children's conceptions of 93 . s o c i a l rules and conventions become more generalizable and abstract with age. Although c h i l d r e n may i n i t i a l l y learn context-specific s o c i a l rules and conventions, the studies indicate that with age they construct w e l l -organized and i n t e r n a l l y consistent schemes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Thus, the s o c i a l cognition l i t e r a t u r e was used to develop the model of children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation. A p i l o t study in v o l v i n g interviews with 15 c h i l d r e n between the ages of 5 and 15 was used to r e f i n e the model. And, f i n a l l y , the f i n a l f i f t e e n interviews with 10 s i x year olds and 5 twelve and t h i r t e e n year olds served as an i n i -t i a l test of the model. The f i n a l interviews indicated that children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation could be analyzed i n terms of ideas about the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. It was found that the s i x year olds had a much more un d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and con-crete understanding of the s o c i a l structure. Their understanding of s o c i a l roles and r e l a t i o n s h i p s ranged from the a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h between two s o c i a l categories of persons, to an understanding of s o c i a l r o l e s , including s p a t i a l r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s associated with those r o l e s . The twelve and t h i r t e e n year olds understanding of the s o c i a l structure was, on the other hand, more abstract, d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and principle-governed. They had constructed an understanding of s o c i a l r o l e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s and had begun to understand p r i n c i p l e s such as power, status and authority which underlie the s o c i a l structure. Both age groups had constructed a f a i r l y sophisticated understanding of the s o c i a l organization of space. Most of the respondents were aware of the rules and conventions governing the use of space within the neighborhood, from access to t h e i r front yard to the rules and conventions governing access and 94. use of the courtyards and the public parks. The respondents also were aware of differences between the a r c h i t e c t u r a l and s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of semi-public spaces i n t h e i r neighborhood. As, i n most cases, t h e i r "home range" included the e n t i r e housing development, they had discovered which courtyards were defined as semi-public spaces and which were defined as public space. To an outsider, or perhaps even an adult resident of the housing development, these d i s t i n c t i o n s would perhaps be overlooked. Thus, the analysis did confirm that conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation consist of two components, knowledge of the s o c i a l structure and knowledge of the s o c i a l organization of space. Beyond simply confirming t h i s aspect of the model, the children's responses also documented the dynamic process of t h e i r construction of s o c i a l knowledge. Most of the c h i l d r e n were i n the process of learning about the rules and conventions which govern the actions of c h i l d r e n , and of the sanc-tions which are invoked by adults for breaking those rules and conventions. The c h i l d r e n were constructing ideas about "authority" i n the sense that they were beginning to discriminate between adults who could l e g i t i m a t e l y invoke s o c i a l rules and those who could not. In conjunction with these ideas about the authority of various s o c i a l categories of adults, the c h i l d r e n were also developing ideas of t h e i r own about t h e i r power as c h i l d r e n i n r e l a t i o n to adults. Many of the c h i l d r e n discussed the strategies they used for dealing with adults, both i n co-operative and antagonistic s i t u a t i o n s . Thus, children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation appears to be a very potent aspect of s o c i a l knowledge. As children's understanding of the process of s p a t i a l appropriation i s based on t h e i r ideas and b e l i e f s about the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization o 95. of space, i t provides a useful avenue for exploring t h e i r conceptions of th e i r s o c i a l world. 5.2 Levels of, Understanding The children's responses were c l a s s i f i e d according to the four l e v e l s of understanding posited i n the model. Only one of the si x year olds was found to have a l e v e l one scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n while only three of the older respondents were found to have a l e v e l four scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Although most of the respondents were aware of context-specific rules and conventions, most had not developed an abstract and integrated scheme of in t e r p r e t a t i o n which they could use to make sense of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation across contexts. In t h e i r attempts to construct an explanation or j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the correspondence between the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space, most of the younger respondents refered to e i t h e r the physical or a r c h i t e c t u r a l design of the setting or to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o c i a l organization. In general t h e i r explanations r e f l e c t e d t h e i r attempts to make sense of the s o c i a l and physical environments i n which they operated. In many cases, p a r t i c u l a r l y at levels two and three, the respondents had constructed ideas about various aspects of the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space, but had not yet integrated them into a consistent scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . For example, many of the younger respondents had some ideas about the meaning of ownership and the lo c a t i o n of private, semi-private and public spaces, along with some awareness of the rules and conventions governing access to those places. They had not, yet, however, developed an understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the concept of owner-ship and the rules and conventions governing access to private, semi-private and public spaces. They did not understand that the rules could be 96. explained or j u s t i f i e d on the basis of ownership. At the t h i r d l e v e l the respondents understood that ownership was re-lated to the a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h and maintain claims to space, however i t was not u n t i l l e v e l four that they were aware that ownership gave an i n d i -v i d u al the s o c i a l l y sanctioned r i g h t s to c o n t r o l access and use of space. Thus the model of children's conceptions of rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation provides a framework for exploring the form and content of children's conceptions of t h e i r s o c i o - s p a t i a l environment. 5.3 Implications for Future Research The r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that the model of children's concep-tions of s o c i a l rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation may be a useful took for exploring a system of b e l i e f s and ideas about space, and furthermore of analyzing the structure inherent i n such a conceptual scheme . The model provides for example, a means of comparing and contrasting the "content" of the scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by members of d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l worlds. The small number of interviews completed i n t h i s study suggest that a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n may be developed and maintained by small groups of i n d i v i d u a l s within a larger c u l t u r a l group. The ch i l d r e n i n t h i s study, as one s o c i a l group, seem to have constructed a p a r t i c u l a r scheme of i n t e r -p retation for making sense of and dealing with the s o c i a l and physical envi-ronment i n which they l i v e . Other s o c i a l groups including for example a l o c a l p o l i c e force, a 'ratepayers' association, or a street gang may also develop a unique set of ideas and b e l i e f s about the d e f i n i t i o n and use of see also Furby, 1978; Beaglehole, 1932; S u l l i e , 1935; for a discussion of psychological aspects of b e l i e f s about private property and other possessions. space i n t h e i r l o c a l area. According to the model developed i n t h i s study, such a scheme would include knowledge and b e l i e f s about the l o c a t i o n and meaning of p a r t i c u l a r boundaries i n the neighborhood, about the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and at t r i b u t e s of members of the community, and about the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween the s o c i a l organization of space and the s o c i a l structure of that p a r t i c u l a r community. Further research could therefore involve c h i l d r e n from d i f f e r e n t .socio-economic or ethnic backgrounds. The children's b e l i e f s about the s o c i a l structure and s o c i a l organization of space i n t h e i r neighborhood could be c l a s s i f i e d according to the model and then compared. Thus, information would be gained regarding the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n the ideas and b e l i e f s held by d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups about the organization and meaning of the s o c i o - s p a t i a l environment. The model could also be used to explore c r o s s - c u l t u r a l differences i n the form of content of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Although i n other cultures i n d i v i d u a l ' s ideas and b e l i e f s about space may be based on a d i f f e r e n t set of cosmological or r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e s , the model could be used as an i n i t i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. Although the "content" of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n may vary across cultures, there may be consistencies i n the "form" of such a scheme. For example, i n North America 'ownership' i s one p r i n c i p l e which underlies the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l structure arid the s o c i a l organization of space?. Property owners, (or a f a c s i m i l i e such as "renters") are one s o c i a l for a discussion of the h i s t o r i c a l development of ideas about 'private property' see Scott, 1977 and McPherson, 1978. 98. category of persons who can l e g i t i m a t e l y appropriate space. In other cultures, however, a scheme of s p a t i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would be based on p r i n c i p l e s .other than private ownership. For example, i n cultures where land i s neither bought nor sold, but rather "use" of the space i s relegated to c e r t a i n mem-bers of the society in accordance with kinship, r e l i g i o u s or cosmological p r i n c i p l e s , a scheme of s p a t i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would be based on an under-standing of those p r i n c i p l e s (see Rappoport, 1972, Pennock, 1971, Westin, 1970). Thus studies involving members of two d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l groups could be undertaken. The questions would focus on c u l t u r a l l y - s p e c i f i c ideas and b e l i e f s about the s o c i a l structure, the s o c i a l organization of space and the r e l a t i o n s between them. Although the "content" of a scheme of i n t e r -pretation may vary cross c u l t u r a l l y , there may be s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the form of those schemes. Thus the model could be used to compare and contrast the form and content of a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n used by members of d i f f e r e n t cultures. This study also provides a source of information about children's con-ceptions of another aspect of t h e i r s o c i a l world. The model provides a means of categorizing and comparing those ideas and b e l i e f s across a range of age l e v e l s . Like recent s o c i a l cognition studies which have dealt with children's conceptions of rules and conventions, s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , and s o c i a l systems, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that generally speaking, as ch i l d r e n get older they construct a "system of r e l a t i o n s " (Youniss, 1978) or a more integrated scheme for i n t e r p r e t i n g s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and events. In t h i s case, most of the s i x year old c h i l d r e n had some concrete and context-s p e c i f i c understanding of the rules and conventions governing the d e f i n i t i o n and use of space, while most of the older c h i l d r e n had constructed a more abstract and integrated understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l 99. structure and the s o c i a l organization of space. This knowledge would allow the older respondents to make sense of the rules and conventions operating i n diverse contexts. However, in contrast to findings in a number of the s o c i a l cognition and cognitive development studies, there were substantial differences within each age group as to the l e v e l of understanding or rules and conventions. Some of the s i x year olds were found to have the same l e v e l of understanding as some of the twelve year olds. Thus, although the differences between the two age groups suggests possible areas of developmental change (eg., increasingly integrated knowledge of rules and conventions), the differences within each age group suggests that a s t r i c t developmental or age related explanation should be used with caution. While the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the findings suggests that c h i l d r e n do not merely i n t e r n a l i z e knowledge of a 'catalogue' of rules and conventions, but rather construct a more abstract scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , more de t a i l e d research i s needed before any developmental hypotheses can be tested. Such research should include a larger sample of ch i l d r e n across a wider age range. F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s of the study c a l l into question the assumption that c h i l d r e n transgress boundaries simply because they don't know they e x i s t . Most of the s i x year old ch i l d r e n interviewed i n this study were aware of rules and conventions governing access to private, semi-private, and public spaces i n the neighborhood, home, and school. Furthermore, both age groups of c h i l d r e n were aware of subtle d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n and use of two semi-private courtyards. Most of the c h i l d r e n had constructed a deta i l e d understanding of the s o c i a l structure and the s o c i a l organization of space within t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l 100. environment. Based on that understanding they chose to ignore or adhere to boundaries. Some of the chil d r e n reported that they transgressed boundaries and invaded private or semi-private outdoor space for the "excitement" or as an attempt to antagonize adults. Thus, while more de t a i l e d study i s needed, the r e s u l t s of the study suggest that c h i l d r e n may have a more sophisticated and de t a i l e d understanding of s o c i a l rules and conventions governing s p a t i a l appropriation than many adults give them c r e d i t f o r . Therefore, the c o n f l i c t between adults and child r e n i n multiple family housing environments may not be lessened simply by increasing the l e g i b i l i t y of boundaries, but rather through a better understanding of children's conceptions of the s o c i o - s p a t i a l environment. 101 REFERENCES Acredolo, L.P. Frames of reference used by ch i l d r e n for o r i e n t a t i o n in unfamiliar spaces. In G. Moore and R. Golledge. Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research and Methods. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchington and Ross, 1976. Adelson, J., and O'Neil, R.P. Growth of p o l i t i c a l ideas i n adolescence: the sense of community. Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology, 1966, 4: 295-306. A i e l l o , J.R., and Jones, S. F i e l d study on the proxemic behavior of young school c h i l d r e n i n three subcultural groups. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 19: 351-356. Altman, I. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space and Crowding. Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks-Cole Pub., 1975. Altman, I., T e r r i t o r i a l behavior i n humans. In L. Pastalan and D. Carson (eds.) Sp a t i a l Behavior of Older People. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1970. Andrews, H.F. Home range and urban knowledge of school aged c h i l d r e n . •p. Environment and Behavior. 5_ (1) 1973, 73-86. Ardrey, R. The T e r r i t o r i a l Imperative. New York: Atheneum, 1966. Aries, P h i l l i p e . Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family L i f e . New York: Knopf, 1962. Baldassare, Mark. Human s p a t i a l behavior. American Review of Sociology, 1978, 4: 29-56. B a l l , D. Microecology: Social Situations and Intimate Space. New York: Bobbs-Merril Pub., 1973. Bandura, A.L. P r i n c i p l e s of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1969. 102. Barash, D.P. Human ethology: Personal space r e i t e r a t e d . Environment and Behavior, 5 (1), 1973, 67-73. Barker, R. E c o l o g i c a l Psychology. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press, 1968. Barker, R. The Mid-West and i t s Children: The Psychological Ecology of an American Town. New York: Row Peterson, 1955. Beaglehole, Ernest. Property: A Study in Social Psychology. London: School of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science. Study #1. New York: MacMillan, 1932. Beck, R.M., and Teasdale, P. User Generated Program for Lowrise Multiple Dwelling Housing: a Summary of a Research Project. C.M.H.C., University of Montreal, Centre de Recherches et d'Innovation Urbaines, 1977? Becker, F. Children's play i n multiple family housing. Environment and Behavior, 8 (4), 1976, 545-574. Blumer, Herbert. The s o c i o l o g i c a l implications of the thought of G.H. Mead. The American Journal of Sociology, March 1966, 535-544. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Caimbridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. Brown, G. Spencer. Laws of Form. London: A l l e n and Unwin, 1969. Calhoun, J. Population density and s o c i a l pathology. S c i e n t i f i c American, 1962, 206: 139-48. Cavan, S. The etiquette of youth. In G. Stone and H. Farberman (eds). So c i a l Psychology through Symbolic Interactionism. Walthan, Mass.: G i n n - B l a i s d e l l , 1970. Chandler, M. So c i a l cognition: a s e l e c t i v e review of current research. In H. Furth, W. Overton, and J. Gallagher (eds.), The F i r s t Annual Piagetian Yearbook, New York: Plenum, 1976. 103. C h r i s t i a n , J . , Flyger, V., and Davis, D. Factors i n the mass mortality of a herd of Sitka deer. Chesapeake Science, 1960, 1: 79-95. Coates, G., and Brussard, E. Patterns of children's s p a t i a l behavior i n a moderate density housing development. In D. H. Carson. Man-Environment  Interactions: Evaluation and Application. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference, EDRA. Stroudsburg. Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Inc. 1974. Cooper, C , Day, N., and Levine, B. Resident D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n Multiple Family Housing. I n s t i t u t e of Urban and Regional Development, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Working Paper #160, March 1972. Cooper, C. Easter H i l l V i l l a g e : Some Social Implications of Design. New York: The Free Press, 1975. Cooper-Marcus, C. Children i n c l u s t e r housing: some recommendations. Landscape, October, 1974: 152-157. Damon, William. The Soci a l World of the C h i l d . San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Pub., 1977. Danzinger, K. (ed.) Readings i n Chi l d S o c i a l i z a t i o n . Oxford: Pergamon Press 19700 Edney, J. Human T e r r i t o r y . Psychological B u l l e t i n . 81 (12), 959-975. Elkind, David. Children and Adolescents. New York: Oxford Univ. Press,. 1970. Fel i p e , N. , and Sommer, R. Invasions of personal space. So c i a l Problems. 14: 206-214. 1966. F l a v e l l , John, H. Cognitive Development. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1977. F l a v e l l , John, H. The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1973. Freedman, J., Klevansky, S., and E h r l i c h , P. The e f f e c t of crowding on human task performance. Journal of Applied S o c i a l Psychology, 1971, 1: 7-25. 104. Fry, A.M., and W i l l i s , F.N. Invasions of personal space as a function of the age of the invader. Psychological Record, 1971, 21: 385-389. Furby, L. Possessions: toward a theory of t h e i r meaning and function through-out the l i f e c ycle. In P.B. Baltes (ed.), L i f e Span Development and  Behavior, Vol, 1. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Furth, H., Baur, M. , and Smith, J.E. Children's conceptions of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s : a Piagetian framework. Human Development, 1976, 19:351-374. Galle, O.R., Gove, W.R., and McPherson, J.M. Population density and s o c i a l pathology: What are the r e l a t i o n s for man? Science, 1972, 176i23-30. Goffman, Erving. Behavior i n Public Places. New York: The Free Press, 1963. Gump, Paul V. The behavior setting: A promising unit for environmental designers. In R u l t o l f Moos and Paul Insel (eds). Issues i n Social  Ecology. Stanford, C a l i f . : National Press Books, 1974. H a l l , E.T. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday, 1966. H a l l , E.T. The S i l e n t Language. Grenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications Inc., 1961. Hart, Roger. Children's.Experience of Place. New York: Halsted Press, 1979. Hart, R.A., and Moore, G.T. The development of s p a t i a l cognition: a review. In R.M. Downs and D. Stea (eds). Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and S p a t i a l Behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973. Heidiger, H. Wild Animals i n C a p t i v i t y New York: Dover, 1964. Hutt, C , and Vaizey, M. D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of group density on s o c i a l behavior. Nature, 1966, 209: 1371-1372. Jahoda, G. The construction of economic r e a l i t y by some Glaswegian c h i l d r e n . European Journal of So c i a l Psychology, Vol. 9, 115-127 (1979). Kuhn, D. Mechanisms of cognitive and s o c i a l development: One psychology or two? Human Development, 1978, 21: 92-118. 105. Leibman, M. The e f f e c t s of sex and race norms on personal space. Environment  and Behavior, 1970, 2: 208-246. Lewin, Kurt. The P r i n c i p l e s of Topographical Psychology. New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1936. MacPherson, C.B. (ed.) Property: Mainstream and C r i t i c a l Positions, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978. McGurk, Harry(ed.). E c o l o g i c a l Factors i n Human Development. Amsterdam: North Holland Pub:,, 1977. Mead, G.H. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944. Moore, G., and Golledge, R. (eds). Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research and Methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.,: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Inc. 1976. Pastalan, L.A., and Carson, D.H. Sp a t i a l Behavior of Older People. Ann Arbor Michigan: I n s t i t u t e of Gerontology, University of Michigan Press, 1970. Pennock, J.P., and Chapman, J.W. Privacy. New York: A'therton Press, 1971. Piaget, Jean. Structuralism. New York: Harper, 1970. Piaget, Jean. The Child's Conceptions of Space, New York: Norton, 1967. Piaget, Jean. The Child's Conception of the World. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc., 1929. Prosser, William. Trespassing c h i l d r e n . C a l i f o r n i a Law Review. August, 1959. Rand, G. Children's images of houses: A prolegma to the study of why people s t i l l want pitched roofs. In W.J. M i t c h e l l (ed.), Environmental design: research and p r a c t i s e . Proceedings of the 3rd Annual EDRA Conference. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Inc., 1972. Rapoport, A. Australian Aboriginies and the d e f i n i t i o n of place. In W.J. M i t c h e l l (ed.) Environmental design: research and pr a c t i s e : Proceedings of the 3rd Annual EDRA Conference. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, • and Ross, Inc., 1972. 106. Schmidt, R.C. Density, delinquency, and crime i n Honolulu. Sociology and Soc i a l Research, 1957, 41: 274-276. Scott, W.B. In Pursuit of Happiness: American Conceptions of Property from the 17th to 20th Century. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1977. Sommer, R. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Pr e n t i c e - H a l l , 1969. Stea, D. Space, t e r r i t o r y , and h'jiman movements. In H. Proshansky, W. It t e l s o n , and L. R i v l i n (eds). Environmental Psychology: Man and his Physical Setting. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1970. Stokols, D. Human Crowding. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks-Cole, 1978. Sundstrom, E. Toward an interpersonal model of crowding. S o c i o l o g i c a l Symposium. 1975, 14: 129-144. Suttles, G. The Soci a l Order of the Slum. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Thornberg, J . A c h i l d ' s conceptions of places to l i v e i n . In W.F. Preiser (ed.) Environmental design research: Proceedings of the 4th Annual EDRA Conference. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc. 1973. T u r i e l , E. The development of s o c i a l concepts. In D. DePalma, and J. Foley (eds.) Moral Development. New York: Lawrence, Erlbaum and Associates, 1975. United Way of Greater Vancouver. The Housing Game: Consumer Preferences, 1972. Vischer-Skaburskis Planners. False Creek Area 6 Phase I Post Occupancy Evaluation, F i n a l Report. C.M.H.C., March 1980. Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. Thatcher, V i r g i n i a (ed.) Chicago, 111.: Consolidated Book Publishers, 1973. Werner, H. Comparative Psychology of Mental Development. Chicago: F o l l e t t , 1947. 107. Westin, A. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Athenum Press, 1970. Whyte, W.F. Street Corner Society. Chicago, 111.: Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1955. Wolfe, M. , and Laufer, R. The concept of privacy i n childhood and adolescence. In D.H. Carson (ed.) Man-Environment Interactions: Proceedings of the 5th Annual EDRA Conference, Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Inc. 1974. Youniss, J. D i a l e c t i c a l theory and Piaget on s o c i a l knowledge. Human  Development. 1978, 21: 234-247. APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 109. I School 1) Can you t e l l me about where you play at school? 2) Can you t e l l me a l l of places inside the school where you are allowed to go any time you'like? Probe: classrooms, h a l l s , bathrooms. 3) Can you t e l l me a l l of the places where you can't go inside the school any time you like? Probe: p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e ; staffroom. 4) Why can't you go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e any time you like? Probe: are there rules or any other reason; how did you fi n d out that you weren't allowed to go there any time; why are there rules l i k e that. 5) Who can go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e any time they l i k e ? Probe: teachers, the p r i n c i p a l , s e c r e t a r i e s . 6) Why can go and not ? Probe: but the p r i n c i p a l can come to your classroom any time s/he l i k e s . 7) Why can't you go to the staffroom any time you l i k e ? Probe: same as i n #4 8) Who can go i n the staffroom any time they li k e ? Probe: teachers, p r i n c i p a l , secretaries 9) Why can the p r i n c i p a l go there and not therstudents? Probe: but the teacher's can come to your lunchroom. II Home Let's t a l k about the house you l i v e i n now 10) Can everyone who wants to come into your house? Probe: who i s allowed to come i n any time they l i k e (friends, a policeman, mailman, aunts and uncles) 11) Who can't come into your house any time they l i k e ? Probe: are there rules or any other reason why; how did you fi n d out about that. 12) Why can come into your house and not Probe:' a fr i e n d , r e l a t i v e vs. someone you don't know. 13) Can you t e l l me about the l i v i n g room i n your house? What do you usually do there? 14) In your l i v i n g room, where do you usually s i t when you are doing ? Probe: where does your mother, father, s i b l i n g s i t , do they usually s i t i n the same place, are there rules or any other reason why, what happens i f you s i t i n your 's seat, why does that happen? 110. 15) Suppose someone was coming to s e l l something to your mom and dad and they wanted to buy i t , where would they go to talk? Probe: where would they s i t (distance) 16) What i f good friends of yours came over to v i s i t you, where would you and your f r i e n d s i t to talk? 17) Why would the salesperson s i t here and not where your f r i e n d sat? Probe: but on a bus a stranger s i t s r i g h t beside you. I l l Neighborhood i 18) Can you t e l l me where you play i n your neighborhood? 19) Can you t e l l me a l l of the places where you can go in your neighborhood any time you l i k e ? Probe: to your own house, to a friend's house, the park, another enclave. 20) Can you t e l l me a l l of the places i n your neighborhood where you can't go any time you l i k e ? Probe: inside someone's house you don't know, your neighbor's house, someone else's porch, front yard. 21) Are there any rules or any other reason why you can't go to those places any time you l i k e ? Probe: how did you fi n d out that i t wasn't a l r i g h t to go there any time you l i k e d , why are there rules l i k e that? 22) How do people know where they can go and where they can't go? Prob'Probe: where does your property end, how do you know that. 23) Who owns the property i n the inside of the enclave? Probe: who can/can't play there, what about some kids you didn't know from another enclave/ outside False Creek. 24) What about the park, who can play there? Probe: what about your friends/ strangers. Why? 25) Why can strangers play i n the park and not on your porch? Probe: i s that a good idea, why? APPENDIX B SAMPLE INTERVIEW (13 YEAR OLD) 112. Can you t e l l me f i r s t where you l i k e to hang around the school, or play? Well b a s i c a l l y under the covered area where a l l of the kids hang around, and just up on the steps, and on the f i e l d a l o t . Do you hang around there at lunch time or do you go other places? At lunch time sometimes I'm at home and but alot of the time I'm out there. Can you t e l l me a l l of the places inside the school where you're allowed to go any time you li k e ? Any time I li k e ? Uh huh. Well i t s d i f f e r e n t when i t s recess, e s p e c i a l l y cause at recess no students are allowed i n except for the washrooms downstairs. No you're r e a l l y not allowed much places, you are allowed the washrooms the l i b r a r y but you have t h i s system where you have a tag and um you're allowed, l i k e I can pretty w ell get anywhere, I'm not saying that I'm r e a l l y allowed here but... Just t e l l me the places where you're allowed to go. You're r e a l l y not allowed to go anywhere because i t s work time. So when you're going places where you're not allowed to you're... Well the only excuses are uh besides lunch and recess are l i b r a r y thats i f you're c o l l e c t i n g s p e c i f i c information or something, gym and washrooms. So what happens when your somewhere you're not supposed to go? Well I r e a l l y haven't had that experience but I don't know. You'd probably get into trouble. They'd give you a t a l k I guess and the second time you'd do i t you'd get, I don't know exactly what would happen. It would probably be, I do know that some people gotten i n trouble, not exactly the same idea, where they had taken out equipment without per-mission and so they aren't allowed to take out equipment for the rest of the year. Oh I see. Ok. So can you go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e any time you l i k e ? B a s i c a l l y yes. Can you go there to eat your lunch? No, (Ha Ha) How come you can't go there to eat your lunch? The p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e , because that i s the s t a f f room and thats just not allowed. 113. Oh well why don't you think i t s allowed? Well that's t h e i r rooms. Those are the teachers I guess and a l l that. What about the s t a f f room can you go there? The s t a f f room, no that's connected to the o f f i c e you have to go to the o f f i c e , that's where they eat a c t u a l l y and no you're not allowed there e i t h e r . The only place inside the school where you're allowed to eat i s i n the lunch room which they usually p u l l out tables i n the gym. Well, why do you think that the p r i n c i p a l can go to the gym to eat but the kids couldn't go to the staffroom to eat? Because I have a f e e l i n g that I guess that kids can be a l i t t l e i r r e s -ponsible and l i k e goof around or make garbage or something l i k e that or p u l l out frisbees or something and s t a r t throwing them around or i t s just the fact that they don't have as much power as the .. I don't know. OK How did you f i n d out that you weren't allowed to go there any time you liked? I'd say b a s i c a l l y the hard way. Because I was coming back from Toronto the very f i r s t day of school and thats when they show everybody the schoo and t e l l them whats good so I b a s i c a l l y found out that the hard way by a c t u a l l y I had done my work. In the foyer of the gym and the kids were playing frisbee i n the gym and we were a l l c a l l e d into the o f f i c e and given a t a l k i n g to and i f we're caught doing that again, even i f we were working there, we'd get i n trouble something was going to happen, I forget. Lets see who do you think can go i n the s t a f f room any time they l i k e ? Anybody that happens to be not a student, everybody except students and b a s i c a l l y I would say the parents or v i s i t o r s or they'd walk i n . But t h i i s what I could do. I could go up to the o f f i c e , I could go into the staffroom and I could t a l k to somebody but I just couldn't plop down and s t a r t eating my lunch or something nor could a v i s i t o r or something l i k e that, anybody else who works here. OK l e t ' s t a l k a l i t t l e b i t about where you l i v e now. Do you l i v e i n False Creek? Yes. Do you l i v e i n the co-ops, apartments I l i v e about, considering that the doors of the school face north I l i v e at about southwest of the school and i t s the wood buildings, they're c a l l e d the University Non-Profit Organization. 114. Oh yeah, r i g h t I've got a map here. I l i v e r i g h t there, the top f l o o r . Oh r i g h t , thats neat, they're co-ops then? They're not co-ops, that's not a co-op, i t s the University Non-Profit. Oh I see so people a c t u a l l y own t h e i r houses? What we did was we got together, u n i v e r s i t y people, who work i n the u n i v e r s i t y and they b u i l t i t . But my mother has some r e a l l y good friends who are judges or whatever at the u n i v e r s i t y , she managed to get i t . Oh yeah. And then they had to pick who had to get each house,right, so what they did was say took f i f t y two cards for f i f t y two houses they shuffled them handed a card out to everybody and they shuffled another deck and placed i t down picked up a card and whoevers card came up f i r s t i t was t h e i r choice f i r s t and my mothers was the ace of spades and I forget what the f i r s t card was but the second was an Ace of spades so she got what she wanted too. Well she got the second choice of what she wanted but now she's even happier cause a f t e r choosing the houses the government made some more changes and a l l of the houses that were going to be b u i l t so. So that worked out we l l . Who can come to your house any time they l i k e ? Just walk r i g h t in? Uh huh I'd say my mother's friends, not my s i s t e r ' s or my friends because i t s just not r i g h t , you know 'kids'. My mothers friends, but they always knock. They b a s i c a l l y come any time they l i k e . And the family they can come i n any time they l i k e . Not counting my dad, he'd knock because my dad and my mother don't l i v e together any more, my dad's married again. So he would knock. Yeah, he doesn't come i n though. OK Who's not allowed to come i n any time they l i k e ? Any time? Would they have to knock? Yes, who couldn't just sort of knock and then come ri g h t in? Oh, I'd say people we don't know r e a l l y . Our friends are pretty trustworthy our friends don't they always knock but I would say alot of the s e l l e r s , or whatever, strangers b a s i c a l l y . 115. Yeah r i g h t . How about a policeman could he walk i n any time he l i k e s ? I doubt i t . He'd knock and then wait. And how about the mailman? or mailwoman? No, he just puts the mail through the s l o t . Right, well why do y'ounthihknthen people i n your family can just walk r i g h t in? and a mailman can't? Well, you don't know the mailman. I think i t s because you happen to know the other people and just knowing them you know whether they are trustworthy or not. If they are trustworthy then they can be allowed to just walk i n , that must be i t . Ok good. Do you think that there's rules about s t u f f l i k e that, about people coming that you know? Do you think i n general that people follow those kinds of rules? Yes, why not. Cause you do the same thing when you go to your friend's place too I guess. Although I have had a s l i p up when I think i t s my house and I just walked r i g h t i n , what happens i s that I walk i n and oops I'm sorry. A l l r i g h t They've done i t to our house too, i t s an accident. Can you t e l l me about the l i v i n g room at your house, do you have chairs and couches. Our l i v i n g room i s I'd say about f i f t e e n feet wide and about t h i r t y feet long and i t s a dining room and l i v i n g room so about twenty feet i s l i v i n g room and the other ten or so i s the dining space. We have a big dining table that f i t s s i x people. It's round and i t s got wood chairs and they've got pigskin, and we have a big buffet that matches i t and some pictures my mother got given a b e a u t i f u l picture about eight feet square and i t s up on the wall and we've got a big couch thats got a Chinese look i t doesn't have Chinese symbols on i t but a l l these, i t ' s got a couch and another attachment, sort of a couch without arms on the side but just a back so you can attach i t , and we have a glass table with pyramids going down on the bottom and we have brown shag carpet. Do you have a sp e c i a l chair i n the l i v i n g room? Not one i n p a r t i c u l a r Do you watch TV i n your l i v i n g room? No, r i g h t beside our l i v i n g room i s another room, r i g h t there i s a t e l e v i s i o n i n the back set wal l , and we have a small love seat and a 116. wooden chair and there not s p e c i a l chairs although the one singular chair i s mother's f a v o r i t e I guess she always s i t s on i t . Do you sometimes s i t on i t ? Her f a v o r i t e i s her c h e s t e r f i e l d , i t s always her f a v o r i t e . Thats where she s i t s usually? Yeah What i f you s i t there. Usually, uh i t costs alot she says and i t s , we usually s i t on the arm rests so you can look out the window and she's a f r a i d that i t w i l l break, she seems r e a l l y a f r a i d of the d i r t y pants. Well, what i f someone was coming to s e l l some r a f f l e tackets or a vacum where do you think that your mom would s i t and t a l k to them. She would probably stand f i r s t at the door and t a l k through the door, have the door open, and t a l k about i t and i t depends how interested she gets i n i t and i f she got r e a l l y into i t she would l i k e an interview l i k e we had something l i k e t h i s , with the lady who came over and she comes ri g h t i n and she s i t s r i g h t on the c h e s t e r f i e l d and she makes some coffee and they drink coffee and i f i t s a good f r i e n d , s o c i a l , i t s wine or martini or whatever and they s i t down and t a l k . If i t was a good f r i e n d would they s i t in a d i f f e r e n t place than i f i t was someone they didn't know. Not r e a l l y , the c h e s t e r f i e l d , i s t h e r e i s no p a r t i c u l a r seat on~ i t that she has, but I suppose i f they weren't as much they would probably p u l l up a chair or just t a l k standing up or p u l l up a chair i n the kitchen which i s a nice table, but one thing about our l i v i n g room i t doesn't have a f l a t roof. Let's t a l k about the neighborhood now. Can you t e l l me a l l of the places where you can go any time you l i k e ? The whole False Creek? Just s t a r t with your section. OK i n our section we have a playground and we have grass area where they just recently cut up a l l of our grass to re-design the playground under the grass and Is that i n the center part? Yeah get the map and I', 11 show you. So i n that section there i s a playground r i g h t there, what they aretrying to do i s l e v e l i t o f f . Thats the grass cause i t was at a bad t i l t 1 1 7 . and instead they are putting i n more plants i n our section so we'll have less grass and there i s alot of kids there and I have a f e e l i n g , i t s just t e r r i b l e cause i t s going to get wrecked up. Why? . ' Kids, and we don't have any gates to lock up out people,who don't l i v e i n our section so they can come in fr e e l y and they ride t h e i r bikes over the plants and that i t s not too good. Oh I see, yeah. and we have a Strata Council which i s the bosses and there i s a man who quit i t but he used to be bad and we didn't have anything we couldn't play i n the plants and they didn't l i k e us to play ontthe grass well what we wanted to do was put water on i t you know and make a s l i d e , we're going to do that t h i s summer i t s the only water fun you can keep your-s e l f cool with, but um they said that we couldn't put on our sandbox, that was the kids sandbox, and we should have been allowed to you know to flood i t and make a l l r i v e r s and dams and that. Why did they say that? This was a couple of years ago though t r i e d that t h i s year I think i t was not too long ago... I'm too old now but i t was fun. I don't know why, I mean where do we get to go to play i n our section? Well what i s that space for i n the middle? Its l i k e a back yard thats what i t i s , the back. Well then how come kids aren't allowed to play there? I t s , you might c a l l the guy a grouch. Well so now when they plant things there Yeah i t s going to be even worse, they are a l l just going to get wrecked. So plants are places where ... they would have designed i t better, they should have designed i t so that the kids would have a you know so that they can be there, and another part they just ripped o f f a chunk of sidewalk which because people i n th i s house don't need that chunk of sidewalk to get over into there, and I always walked up there to the bus or whatever now I wouldn't walk a l l the way, l i k e i f they said that I would have to walk a l l the way around the other houses to get out, but now they are going to put plants r i g h t there thats just going to get trampled. Well whose property i s that? This i s the whole section's property. 118. Is that r i g h t that they can do that? Apparently so, a majority. Oh I see, well i s there very many kids there where you l i v e ? Well a c t u a l l y the design they didn't design i t , the majority decided that they wanted a new design of things. Well why did they decide that do you think? Well the plants and the grass were designed poorly they had had quite a few too many plants a l l around that didn't grow right at c e r t a i n spots where they wanted i t to and the design i t wasron h i l l s and everything the the l a s t two thats why the grass was already long grown into there or something I don't know but t h i s was t e r r i b l e for water drainage be= cause the water would flood and k i l l grass on one area and because i t was on a h i l l and a l l of the water from the grass on the top would drain away so they would die of lack of water and die or drowning, so i t wasn't designed r i g h t so they are going to design i t l e v e l but they are putting extra plants now. Can you t e l l me about any other places where you can't go i n False Creek i n general? In the marinas. How come you can't go there? It has a l l of these signs of "Private Property" or something sometimes i t makes me mad sometimes i t doesn't. Well how do you know that you're not allowed to go there? Well they have gates up and everything and they have push button s p e c i a l alarm. Oh, you can't get down there. Can you go i n your neighbors houses any time you like? Nope, unless i t s l i k e , I don't walk i n any time but i f I'im rushing home and i f I wanted to go an grab something from my house and bring i t over quickly I usually walk r i g h t into the house and the same with him What about to the park, can you go there any time you l i k e ? I can go any time yeah. Is the park private property? Um, no i t s Park's Board. 119. So, can anybody go there that wants to? Yeah b a s i c a l l y , a c t u a l l y anyone i t s pu b l i c . What's the difference between t h i s park and where you l i v e here? Well this i s private t h i s i s owned or co-op owned or something l i k e that but t h i s i s Parks Board owned. Are a l l of the entrances here blocked off? No. Well how do people know that they can't come there? People who don't l i v e in your co-op say. Well those are co-op owned so they don't have private property signs a l l we have i s l i t t l e private property signs saying "Private Property" I see whatsttihe difference then between the co-ops here and the land here i n the center of yours? Theirs, I don't r e a l l y understand t h i s but ours was U n i v e r s i t y Non-Profit they just designed i t that way and t h e i r s was the construction, l i k e we b u i l t our houses and we bought t h i s land a l l together and we b u i l t i t and we bought, so we own our own houses but alot of us didn't have enough money l i k e my mother to just b u i l d i t so what they did was they had the University guys b u i l d i t and now she pays monthly rates and the co-op was b u i l t by a company l i k e or whatever and they grow the grass they buy the the ground they design the inside and when people buy i t then they buy the separate house a whole bunch of them don't go out and buy i t . They, each one of them buys separately so l i k e i t s i n d i v i d u a l so they don't have pieces of property besides t h e i r own gardens. Oh I see, so t h i s i s b a s i c a l l y i s owned by the whole... (UNP) i t s private So r e a l l y the land there i s owned by everybody who l i v e s there buy here they just own t h e i r houses so every so everybody i s welcome I see, thats i n t e r e s t i n g . So, do you ever go i n here to play then' Not r e a l l y to play but I have gone in there lots of times. Well I've been i n there too and i t was sort of funny because I saw those l i t t l e fences, but i t seems that there's not too c l e a r a d i v i d i n g l i n e be-tween people's property and the space that anybody can go i n , what do you think? In that section they r e a l l y don't have t h e i r own private gardens, our section does though. 120. Oh, where are your private gardens? Our private garden, you mean each person, the upper le v e l s don't have them, only the lower le v e l s and they just have fences around them about four feet high. Oh, so thats private there? Yes, thats t h e i r very own and the whole thing i s owned. So can anyone who l i v e s i n that section there go into the gardens? No, cause that's p r i v a t e l y owned by the i n d i v i d u a l OK well thats the place I walked into because I remember i t wasn't too c l e a r where other people's property started and where the center part was. How do you t e l l ? It s t a r t s from, there's a section r i g h t i n here and another one along here. There's a section r i g h t by the garage and there's that section and another section and inside a l l around i n there. What about the gardens? How do you t e l l where they start? The private ones? the inside? they have big fences four feet high. A l l of them have fences? Yeah except some people have them eight feet high. Well what would happen i f somebody didn't know and went i n t h e i r garden? Not much i f they didn't know, i f somebody was there would say sorry t h i s i s private property. Well are there rules about s t u f f l i k e that i n your section? There aren't exactly rules there aren't posted rules or anything I guess. Except for the signs. Yeah, there could be improvements though. What do you mean, how could there be improvements? E s p e c i a l l y i n the garage they have an open garage and t h i s i s where people can just walk r i g h t i n and out, but they have doors blocking o f f a l l of the rest so you have to have a key to get i n and you can just down the entrance and get i n , and we've had alot of vandalism down there with mom's cars but we had paint dumped a l l over our enamel hubcaps swiped and gas syphoned out. Oh dear. 1 2 1 . another thing would be a mirror because coming out of that garage I'm surprised that nobody has gotten k i l l e d or hurt yet but people just r i d e t h e i r bikes Ok you know these big apartments over here, are they private too? Can you go into the lobby there any time you li k e ? I found out that they have a key to get into the lobby. So why would they have a key. I don't know, something about the elevators I guess cause they have an elevator there, I don't know much about that. Whats the difference then between the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e and, does he own h i s of f i c e ? That i s just h i s o f f i c e yes, Its h i s o f f i c e , does he own i t ? You mean the ownership? It i s the school board's I guess. Its just h i s to work in just l i k e the desk that I have was mine and my work i s mine but I don't r i g h t f u l l y own i t i f the School Board were to take i t away from me. So what does that mean in terms of your desk and h i s o f f i c e . Thats h i s , i t s h i s private property but he doesn't have the ownership. So does that make any difference? I mean can you do d i f f e r e n t things with land that you own as compared to land l i k e h i s o f f i c e ? Your allowed to do things with i t your allowed to change the appearance, rather as with a rented place same sort of thing as the o f f i c e he's sort of renting i t only he doesn't pay gets paid, but the rentals my fr i e n d Glen who has l i v e s ... put a wall up but i t i s designed only with pressure so that when they have to move out they just have to knock the wall out and i t hasn't been na i l e d i n or anything, you can't n a i l i t i n because i t s not owned by them. Say your desk thats here, why i s i t yours, I mean what can you do with i t because i t s yours, what does that mean? Well I can keep my s t u f f i n i t , I can't draw a l l over i t or anything. Why do you have a desk? Because the taxes i s paid for i t i s used as a too l for education I guess. Why doesn't everybody just share a l l of the desks? In elementary school, I went to a school where that happened at an 1 2 2 . elementary school I guess i t s because the kids just be quite as organ-ized as the high school where you can just carry the s t u f f around, i t s just much easier for the kids to have i t a l l i n one desk OK w e l l what i f some kids from over here you didnJit know wanted to come and play i n your front yard, would that be a l r i g h t ? You mean i n the center part. No i n the fenced part. I'd say no, but there's not much room to play. I'd say no because that's p r i v a t e l y owned they could go i n there sure but i t s l i k e breaking a law sort of not as bad but here anyway. Say they said we r e a l l y want to go and play i n your yard can we? and you said No and they said why not? what would you say then? I'd say i t r e a l l y i s n ' t up to me but i t s my mother's yard and you just can't come i n and play any time you f e e l l i k e i t . and they said but why not? because i t s not yours i t s ours we bought i t and we have a l l of the rights to i t . OK well thats sounds l i k e a good explanation. So how do you think that people generally know where they can and can't go? They learn the hard way because there r e a l l y aren't rules posted or anything l i k e that and to my knowledge I don't know of any paper that comes out which says these rules besides within Strata Co-op or coun c i l within t h e i r l e t t e r s , so I don't r e a l l y know but I don't think that theres much they just learn the hard way except for law they have books and a l l that most kids learn the hard way. Like I know alot about law but theres s t i l l alot of things l i k e you might think that your doing r i g h t because by law i t s allowed but you could be wrong and I don't know what would happen i f you go on the Court Board or something l i k e that you can't explain i t i f you didn't know. Maybe you could plead ignorance of the law. APPENDIX C SAMPLE INTERVIEW ( 6 YEAR OLD) 124. Can you t e l l me where you play at school? I play i n the playground and I play sometimes i n the t r o l l e y , I l i k e the s l i d e . Have you l i v e d here a long time? I moved here a long time ago, they are kind of houses stuck together, i t s not an apartment. Does i t have a back yard and front yard? No i t s on Foundry Quay. Where abouts inside the school are you allowed to go any time you like? I'm allowed to go the a c t i v i t y , to the l i b r a r y , How about the h a l l s and classrooms. Yeah. What about the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e ? I've only been there once. Can you go there any time you l i k e ? No. How about the staffroom can you go there any time you l i k e ? No. Why do you think you can't go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e any time you l i k e ? I don't know. Is there a r u l e or any other reason why you can't go there any time you l i k e ? / No. How do you know that you aren't allowed to go there? I'm only allowed to go there in lunch and s t u f f and recess. In the p r i n c i p a l s o f f i c e ? Yeah. How come you can go there at lunch? I can only go there when I have troubles and somebody hurt me I could t e l l him. 1 2 5 . How about the staffroom can you go there for the same reasons? Yeah I could go there to f i n d a teacher. Could you go to the staffroom to eat your lunch? You mean am I allowed to go there any time I like? Yeah to eat your lunch or something l i k e that. No. Why can you go to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e to phone your mom or something l i k e that but not to eat your lunch? Cause he's busy a l l of the time. How about the staffroom how come you can't go there any time you like? Cause sometimes i t s busy and I don't know, sometimes people are down there working or doing t h e i r art lessons. OK Who can go in the staffroom any time they like? I don't know. Can the teachers go there any time they l i k e ? Yeah. Pr i n c i p a l ? Yeah. How about the secretary? Yeah. Well then why can the secretary go there but you can't go there? Cause they are older than me. Does that make a difference? I don't know. Where abouts do you eat lunch? I eat i t i n the gym with my friends. So can the p r i n c i p a l come andeat lunch i n the gym? Yeah, no he has to stay i n the o f f i c e . 1 2 6 . Is there a rule or something l i k e that that says he has to stay i n the o f f i c e ? He doesn't have to stay i n the o f f i c e a l l of the time but he always l i k e s eating i n the teachers room. I see, so i f I was a new person i n the school how would I know I couldn't go i n the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e ? Do you think someone would t e l l me, or I would see a sign? I think someone would help you out. Can anyone who wants to come i n your house any time they l i k e ? No, only i f my mommy i s in a good mood or something i f she l e t s my friends i n . Who can come i n your house any time they l i k e ? ,my brother, me, my uncles and aunts and my father and mother. Who do you think can't come in your house any time they l i k e ? my friends, How about a mailman? and the postman can't, and an airplane can't How about other people, strangers, can they come i n any time? No, I wouldn't l e t them i n at a l l and I wouldn't even t a l k to one, once when I was going to the store a long time ago she said I could go to the store by myself I didn't mean to and there was a stranger and said you shouldn't be going to the store by yourself and I said I know where i s i s so she took me to the store and when I was going to pay for the s t u f f she grabbed the money and followed me home and came i n my house and my mom got mad and c a l l e d the p o l i c e . Why do you think that strangers can come into your house? but your mom's friends could? Because um strangers don't know you very well your friends do. What about somebody who was a stranger who was s e l l i n g something, do they ever come to your door? No. What about your f r i e n d when she comes to your house does she knock or come f i g h t in? She knocks. 127. Why does she do that? Cause i t s not p o l i t e to walk i n to somebody else's house i f somebody's not there and you walk i n and do mischief thats not good and I know a joke ... Can you t e l l me about the l i v i n g room at your house? I have l o t s of plants and a nice b i g couch and cushions. Where do you usually s i t when your i n the l i v i n g room? On the couch but sometimes on the ch a i r . Where does your mom usually s i t ? She usually s i t s i n her fav o r i t e c h a i r . Whats i t l i k e ? i Its nice and sometimes she l e t s me s i t in i t and my father shaved his moustache and he looks d i f f e r e n t Does your dad have a sp e c i a l chair? Yeah... What happens when you s i t i n your moms sp e c i a l chair? I s i t i n i t and f e e l comfortable. Do you have to move i f she wants to s i t in i t ? No she goes and s i t s i n another one. How about your dad's sp e c i a l chair? He does and s i t s somewhere else . Suppose somebody was coming to s e l l some r a f f l e t i c k e t s and your mom and dad wanted to buy some where would they s i t ? They'd t a l k i n the l i v i n g room. Would they s i t close together or far apart? My mom and dad would s i t close together and my mom and the stranger would s i t f a r . How come i s that? The strangers we don't know very w e l l . 128. What i f eame over and you were going to t a l k i n the l i v i n g room, where would you s i t ? Me and ... would s i t beside each other and sometimes after we get into a f i g h t we hug each other cause she's my best f r i e n d . What i f somebody you didn't know came over would you s i t beside them? No. Have you ever ridden onna bus, and sat beside somebody you didn't know? Well why would you s i t beside someone you didn't know on a bus but not in your l i v i n g room? Cause i f the seats are a l l f i l l e d up and thats the only place I can s i t You s i t there. Is that OK? Yeah but I don't t a l k to the stranger I just look, but I dontt l i k e s i t t i n g with strangers very much I l i k e s i t t i n g with my father. Lets t a l k a b i t about your neighborhood then? So where abouts do you play there. I play i n the sandpile. So you play i n the park mainly, you know i n the middle part where there i s grass do you play there? You mean the c i r c l e , yeah. Can you t e l l me a l l of the places where you can't go i n your neighborhood? Well I'm not allowed to step over the seawall and go way down to the water or else I ' l l f a l l i n , there's t h i s caretaker but my father l e t s me go but t h i s caretaker always screams at me when I go and he's r e a l l y mean man and he doesn't l e t me go i n the parking l o t thing cause he thinks I ' l l get run over but when I go on my bike and I might go r e a l l y fast and there's no cars so he t e l l s me to get out cause he thinks that i t s dangerous. Thats i n t e r e s t i n g . Can you go to house any time you li k e ? No. How come? Cause sometimes shes out and sometimes she's sick and sometimes she's eating her supper and having a nice t a l k with her mother. How about.to somebody's house you didn't know could you go there any time you l i k e ? 129. No cause i f I don't know anybody they'd say get out. How come t h e y ' l l say get out? Cause they don't know me very w e l l . Why does that make a difference? Cause they are strangers. How does that make a difference i f they are strangers? I don't know. Say I just walked up to somebody's house I didn't know and I just walked,in, how would they explain to me that I wasn't supposed to be there? They'd say you shouldn't walk into, people's houses i f you don't know them without knocking because you have to knock before you walk i n i f you have a house,,and of course everybody has a house, you're allowed to walk i n your own house. Arid what i f I said why do I have to knock? Because you're not supposed to walk into people's houses without knocking cause thats a r u l e . And i f I said well who made up that rule? I don't know. OK How did you fi n d out where you could go and where you couldn't go? My mom. How do you know where your house is? Cause when I f i r s t moved i n my mommy showed me. Do you have a porch at your house? Yeah. Do you have any grass, where do you s i t outside? My mommy always spreads a blanket. Is i t cement there or i s i t grass? Concrete with pretty l i t t l e rocks. You know the place where we were t a l k i n g about before, the c i r c l e i s i t grass or concrete? 130. Yeah. So who owns that property, the grass part? I don't know. Can anybody go there, say kids from another c i r c l e ? Yeah, anybody can go.in any c i r c l e . So what happens i f somebody who doesn't l i v e i n False Creek comes there to play? Its okay. Is there a manager there? Yes he l i v e d near the parking l o t , he's a very e v i l man though Do you think he would t e l l the other kids they couldn't play there? No he doesn't belong to i t , i t i s n ' t h i s property. Whose property i s i t then, the people who l i v e there? It's the people who l i v e there's property. Is i t the people who l i v e i n a l l of the c i r c l e s property? Its just the one c i r c l e So why i s i t ok for another k i d from another c i r c l e to come there to play i f i t s not t h e i r property? Because um, ... i t s a c i r c l e made for everybody, i t s property that be-longs to people but somebody can come onto i t . What does that mean that i t s t h e i r property? I don't know. How do you know which i s your property and which i s somebody else's property? Cause i t s near somebody's house i t s t h e i r property. What about the park who owns the park? The person who b u i l t i t the whole thing i t belongs to them. So can just those workmen come and play there or can anybody play there? Anybody. Why do you think i t s ok for strangers to play i n the park but not on the patio? 131. Because i t s somebody's patio and the park belongs to anybody. I see, well why does that make a difference do you think? Well i t s somebody's house and you have to ask before you can play on the patio because there might be something d e l i c a t e and i f you t i p i t over i t might break. So i s that any d i f f e r e n t from the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e , i s that his property? The p r i n c i p a l s o f f i c e i s his property? yes. How owns that property? Yes. So can he t e l l people to come i n or not to come in? Yes. Why i s that d i f f e r e n t from the park for instance? Cause i t s h i s o f f i c e and sometimes he's busy or i n a bad mood he says get out or something l i k e that. Could the workmen of.owhoever owns the park t e l l people to get out? No. But they s t i l l own that? I know but they never say things l i k e that they l e t anybody play i n the park just anybody. Why can the p r i n c i p a l t e l l people they can't come i n but the people at the park why don't they ever t e l l people not to come in? Um... cause the p r i n c i p a l owns h i s o f f i c e and the people don't own the park the people that play there don't own the park. I see well there must be somebody who owns the park? the workmen. OK so the workmen don't t e l l people they can't come i n . No they can't. So what I'm wondering i s why they don't? Why they don't t e l l the kids they can't play there i f i t s t h e i r property. Um i t s hard. Yeah i t s a r e a l l y hard question, I don't know the answer to that e i t h e r . APPENDIX D CONSENT LETTER APPENDIX E MAP OF FALSE CREEK DEVELOPMENT L E G E N D : J Market Conddmlniu me 1 Morkol Rtntel •3 Klwania C l u b senior citizens housing 4 B o r t h a O. C l a r t t s Society senior citizens housing 5 M o t h e r l a n d s A s s a c i s t i o n non-profit rental A F a l e e C r o a k C o o p a r Q t i w a 7 C r e e k V i l l a g e C o n d o m i n i u m s • 0 M a r i n a M e w s ( U n i v e r s i t y N o n - P r o i l t ) C o n d o m i n i u m o 9 H a n d l e appad 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095466/manifest

Comment

Related Items