Running head: MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING

Using Mapping to Engage youth in Planning and Governance: Old Method, New Tool

Doug Ragan

University of Colorado

Comprehensive Exam Paper Number One

MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 2

“Simply put, GIS is the language of planning power. It controls what constitutes

legitimate data, shapes the form of public debate, and changes the way neighborhood

organizations think about community issues” (Dennis, 2006, p. 2042).

In this paper, I will explore whether, due to the advancement of geo-spatial

technologies, children and youth have increased their ability to engage in the planning of
their communities. A comparison made will be between earlier forms of mapping such
as drawn and hand-sketched maps (Al-Zoabi, 2001; Amsden & Van Wynsberghe 2005;
Blanchet-Cohen, 2006; Driskell, 2002; Hart, 1979; Lynch, 1979; Amsden, Ao, Hu, Elliot
& Tupechka, Ragan, 2003) and rapidly developing geo-spatial technologies and programs
such as GIS and Open Street Maps (Clifford, 2010; Dennis, 2006; Environmental Youth
Alliance, 2003; Gerson, 2007; Hooberman, 2008; Horelli & Kaaja, 2002; Lifecycles,
2008; Lozano, Grandados & Herrera, 2005; Mccall, 2003; TakingITGlobal, 2006; UN-
HABITAT, 2011). To do this comparison, I will review the well-documented challenges
that youth1 face when engaging in urban planning and governance, both developmentally
as well as systemically. Research suggests that children and youth are not hindered by
their own development and have spatial competencies at a young age (Blaut, Stea,
Spencer & Blades, 2003), which would suggest that they are able to combine these
competencies to participate in complex governance systems (Dennis, 2006; Checkoway,
2003; Gurstein et al, 2003; Blanchet-Cohen & Ragan, 2006). I will look at the systemic
issues faced by youth, specifically looking at how planners and local governments may
want to engage this demographic, yet are blocked from doing so due to lack of resources,
methodologies, and a lack of understanding of what children and youth may bring to the
planning process (Gurstein et al, 2003; Driskell, 2002; Chawla et al., 2005; Checkoway,
2003). Additionally, when youth are engaged, they are often mobilized to further
someone else's agenda rather receiving the recognition and respect to develop their own
agenda and make their own decisions (Hart, 1997; Ragan & Wilkinson, 2009).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
When referencing “youth” I am referring to the internationally recognized age range of
15-24. Though there is little research done on spatial abilities in youth as per my definition, I will
use in-the-field examples to demonstrate those capacities.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 3

One of the most common methods used to engage youth in planning processes is
mapping (Hart, 1979; Driskell, 2002; Amsden et al, 2003). Mapping as an activity has
been used in many different ways with children and youth. For example, Driskell focuses
on “behavioral mapping;” a “systematic observation technique for documenting the use
of specific space of location” (Driskell, 2002, p. 134). Mapping is most often seen in this
context, either as a research method and/or as a tool to engage children and youth,
allowing them to explore and learn about their local environment. The final product—
most often a paper map—is generally not included in, nor has any impact on, formal
planning processes. Dennis (2006) argues that “qualitative representations” (p. 2050)
contained within hand drawn maps, photographs, or verbal presentations could allow
youth equal access to the planning process, but this has not yet been done. From the
literature it is clear that maps are important in engaging youth in planning, and digital
maps even more so, yet the ability of Global Information Systems (GIS) to include
qualitative data has been elusive.
Over the past five years, mapping methods have been enhanced through the
development of new online mapping technologies and programs such as Google Earth,
open source mapping programs, and even interactive video games, to a point where maps
can represent more qualitative data—from audio to video to actual linkages directly to
locations—and these new forms of maps can more easily be created and integrated into
planning processes (Tsai & Van Wart, 2010; Mallan, 2010)3. Many youth have
competence and mastery of these geo-spatial tools, and are able to learn and utilize the
“language of planning power” (Dennis, 2006, p. 2042). The mastery of geo-spatial tools
allows them to advance their competency as community decision makers, sensitize them
to the assets and needs of the community, and through this increased competency become
a critical player in affecting community change (Chawla & Heft, 2003). This increase in
competency with mapping allows youth to advance their development, and to become a
little taller (Sabo, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978; Ragan & Wilkinson, 2009).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
It is important to note that the field of mapping is moving very rapidly, with new
programs being developed almost daily. The qualities that are improving with each new program
are in the area of ease of use, access to, and creation of more mapped data, and the move to
cheaper technologies such as mobile phones. . This has allowed more groups with limited
resources, such as those in the developing world, to fully utilize and gain the benefits of mapping.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 4

In this paper, I will explore how mapping has increased the potential of youth to
engage in planning and governance through reviewing the history of youth participation
in planning and governance, the competencies of youth to do so, and how mapping
practically facilitates this engagement. The paper is organized in four sections: Context
and History—Youth Participation in Governance; Promise and Practicalities of
Participation; Youth Competency in Urban Planning; Spatial Capacity and Mapping;
Mapping Using Geo-location Technologies. This paper will help to lay the groundwork
for a better understanding of the use of maps in the process of engaging youth in urban
planning and enhance their ability to affect change.

Context and History—Youth Participation in Governance

There has been a slow yet growing awareness by governments internationally,

especially within the developing world, of the right of children and youth to participate in
decisions that directly affect them. This right is reflected in international declarations
such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child4, the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development and the United Nations Conference on Human
Settlements (UN, 1989; 1992; 1997). These documents reflect not only a recognition of
the rights of youth to participate, but that they can do so at the local level. Whether it is
their right to be engaged in decisions about the local environment and/or their role in
local governance, governments have recognized that youth have a significant impact
locally (UN, 1989; 1992; 1997). Below is a table that shows the different rights and
responsibilities attributed to youth.

!"#$%&'(&)*+,%-&.",+/*01&2%3$"4",+/*1&/*&5/6,701&8/$%&9/3"$$:

Agency Convention Locality reference

UN General Assembly Convention on the Rights of Article 12

(1989) the Child Convention states that children have a
right to a voice in decisions that concern

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
The CRC deals only with youth from 15–17. There are no conventions that deal
with 18–25 year olds.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 5

them (Article 12) and, specifically in this

context, to decisions that affect their
physical environments.

UNEP (1992) United Nations Conference Chapter 25

on Environment and Youth comprise nearly 30% of the
Development world's population. The involvement of
today's youth in environment and
development decision-making and in the
implementation of programs is critical to
the long-term success of Agenda 21.

UN-HABITAT (1997) HABITAT Agenda Paragraph 120

In order to develop the full potential of
young people and prepare them to take a
responsible role in the development of
human settlements
Paragraph 13:
The needs of children and youth,
particularly with regards to their living
environment, have to be taken fully into
account.

These agreements suggest that youth and those working to engage them should
utilize tools and methods—such as mapping—to increase youth’s ability to engage
locally. The trend also suggests that the improvement of these tools would increase
youth’s ability to engage in local planning processes, and possibly effect positive change
in their communities. The recognition of this local competence has special significance
to the developing world, where the majority of the populations are under the age of 30
(UN-HABITAT, 2007). In the developing world, youth are often viewed negatively and
blamed for the violence and instability that is prevalent in developing countries with

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 6

weak and corrupt government structures (NIC, 2008; Cincotta, 2005). This negativism
can be combated if there are improved tools and methods for the engagement of youth in
governance: tools that would better bring to fruition the capacities of youth as recognized
by agencies such as the World Bank, which stated that this demographic “youth bulge” in
the developing world is a “window of opportunity,” and that youth will lead the way in
advancing the development of these countries (World Bank, 2007, p. 4).

Promise and Practicalities of Participation

Even with the recognition of the rights of children and youth to be engaged at the
local level, the practice of engagement does not often meet the needs of the youth, nor of
those who are engaging them such as local governments, NGOs, or research agencies. A
study done in 2003 with key informants from 31 cities in the Province of British
Columbia, Canada, found that those charged with engaging youth in cities found it
difficult to coordinate the many different municipal departments that engage youth; there
was a lack of funding, resources, and time; youth were often not able to engage in long-
term processes; and youth lacked an understanding of how municipal processes work
(Power, 2003). Youth on the other hand often find that government officials are not
responsive (Horelli, 1998; Corsi, 2002); and tend to feel that the municipal bureaucracy
treats them tokenistically within participatory processes (Gurstein, 2002). Driskell (as
cited in Chawla et al., 2005) found in Growing up in Cities programs that

the biggest challenge has been developing inroads and alliances with local leaders
and planners to effect change beyond the most immediate scope of the project’s
work . . . I think this has been due in part to the fact that many project leaders
have been researchers or other professionals who were inexperienced at political
lobbying and change processes. Thus, while efforts have been made to go from
research into action, the actions themselves have been relatively limited. (p. 73)

Yet if researchers and practitioners believe that children and youth are “experts on
their own environments” (Bartlett, 2005, p.2), or, as Chawla states, that “children and
youth are not only a population with special needs but also one with special energies and
insights that they can bring to the process of human settlements development” (Chawla,

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 7

2001, p. 12), then how does one overcome the aforementioned barriers and access young
people’s expertise for the betterment of the community? In presentations I often use the
example of my son taking me for the first time on a bike trip to his school, and his
extensive knowledge of the dangers and pitfalls of getting there, for example saving me
from hitting “the big crack in the sidewalk.” Yet, unless I am physically with my son, or
unless there is a specific program tailored to engage him in planning, there is no way for
him to express his localized knowledge to a planner or someone in the city who can deal
with those dangerous cracks. I believe that youth can be heard, and these “dangerous
cracks” fixed, through youth gaining mastery of geo-spatial technologies, which as
described by Dennis (2006), is the language of planning power.

There are a number of questions that need to be answered to substantiate this

supposition. First, we need to understand whether youth have reached the developmental
level to comprehend spatial issues. Can they create, read, and interpret a map? These
questions are important because without this basic ability to comprehend, other ways
have to be found to engage youth in urban planning issues. The next important question
is at what stage youth are developmentally mature enough to understand and engage in
complex political systems. As referenced earlier in the British Columbia study, often
adults do not believe that youth can participate in these systems. Is this non-participation
due to their inability to engage, or adults’ unwillingness to facilitate their participation?
The following sections explore these questions with the goal of determining whether
mapping as facilitated by new technologies can enable youth to engage in urban planning.

Youth Competency in Urban Planning

A key question in regards to the engagement of youth in local government is

whether youth have the capacity to be engaged in planning processes. This question can
be looked at in two parts: first, whether developmentally children and youth can
understand planning concepts such as the creation and interpretation of spatial data, and
secondly, whether they can understand the social and political context of planning itself.
As mentioned, Blaut and Stea (1971) have demonstrated that children from a young age
are able to create and interpret maps and spatial data: data that are key to the
understanding and participating in planning processes. There has been less definitive

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 8

work in the area of the political or civic capacity of youth, though there is a body of
anecdotal evidence that suggests that young people are unable to engage in these
processes, which gives rise to the question of whether this is due to adults believing youth
incapable, blocking them from involvement, or whether it truly is the case that youth are
incapable of it (Checkoway, 2003; Driskell, Kanchan & Chawla, 2001; EYA, 2003;
Gerson, 2007; Gurstein, Lovato & Ross, 2003; Horellis and Kaaja, 2002; UN, 2002a;
UN, 2002b).

Children develop spatial skills from a young age, with children as young as four
having basic mapping skills such as the ability to simple maps, understand aerial maps,
and solve simple navigational problems (Blaut & Stea, 1971; Blaut, 1987). Children
demonstrate these skills in the developed as well as in the developing world, suggesting
that a basic mapping ability is universal—not bound to culture or society (Blaut et al.,
2003; Al-Zoabi, 2001; Matthews, 1995). As a practitioner who has worked with youth in
the developing world, I have found that youth are able to understand spatial concepts and
create maps (UN-HABITAT, 2008), and there have been many examples of youth
undertaking mapping processes that have had an impact (Amsden & Van Wynsberghe,
2005; Blanchet-Cohen, 2006; Gerson, 2007; Hurley, Presland, and Taylor; 2007; Lozano,
Granados, & Herrera, 2005; Lifecycles, 2008; Wridt, 2010).

Based on the ability of young children to depict their community in drawings and
other forms, some researchers have conjectured that maps are as important to humans as
language, music, art, and mathematics (Sobel, 1998). Maps have also been recognized as
an excellent medium for young people to express themselves about the physical and
social relationships between organisms and their environment (Lynch, 1971; Hart, 1997).

Youth demonstrate an ability to map and understand not only physical spaces, but
also the social relationships embedded within those spaces. The mapping of physical and
social relationships by youth is not new; Lynch (1979) combined mapping of the physical
community with the identification of significant relationships, which allowed for a
comparison of the different forms and qualities of relationships between the different
study sites.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 9

Many other researchers have found that youth define their neighborhoods through
a social lens, describing elements such as their friends and where they can be with them,
and adult “allies” or those who are not (Hart, 1979; Talen & Coffindaffer, 1999). One
GUIC practitioner working in South Africa found that “children do not divorce human
relationships from their sense of their local environment” (as cited in Chawla et al., 2005,
p. 61). What this research suggests is that relationships can be mapped and that young
people are able to understand and map these relationships.

Mcknight and Kretzman (1996) further expanded our understanding of the

relationship between communities and environment through their Asset Based
Community Development (ABCD) methodology. This methodology is based on the
belief that individual, community, and institutional relationships—or “assets”—are the
primary building blocks of community sustainability (Kretzman & McKnight, 1993).
Participants are given the task of mapping their assets, which are then used in a
community development process. Mcknight and Kretzmann’s basic tenet is that an assets
mapping approach empowers the community, allowing citizens to identify and mobilize
their assets to create positive change within themselves and their communities. The
assets based approach is opposite to the approach that focuses on a community's needs,
deficiencies, and problems in which citizens are left with a plethora of unmet needs,
without an identification of capacities and assets.

&

&

&

;+<64%&'=&Asset Based Community Development Map&

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 10

Figure 1 represents the three types of assets identified within the Asset Based
Community Development process:

! Individual assets—skills and capacities of citizens.

! Community assets—citizens’ associations such as churches, culture groups, clubs.

! Institutional assets — businesses, schools, libraries, community colleges.

The assets mapped in figure 1 are inventoried through a process where community
members are brought together to affect positive change in their community by identifying
their assets in the above three categories (Mcknight & Kretzman, 1996).

In the late 1990s, organizations began to expand upon Mckight and Kretzman’s
(1996) work and develop a community asset based process that combined the cognitive
mapping of Mcknight and Kretzman with the mapping process developed by researchers

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 11

such as Lynch (1997) and revised subsequently by Chawla (2001/2002), and Driskell
(2002). This new process, called Community Asset Mapping, allowed youth to map both
the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of their assets (Amsden et al. 2003; Amsden
& Van Wynsberghe, 2005; Blanchet-Cohen, 2006; EYA, 2003; Gerson, 2007; Ragan,
Amsden, Ao, Hu, Eliot & Tupechka, 2003; Tupechka, 2001; UN-HABITAT, 2008;
Wridt, 2010). This resulted in youth creating maps that depicted such things as
community services and amenities for a broad range of communities (Amsden, 2005;
Lozano, Granados and Herrara, 2005; Hurley et al, 2007) and that established the youth
friendliness of the mapped terrain. Parallel to the merging of these two methods was the
use of mapping technologies such as GIS. These technologies allowed for the creation of
digitized and thus replicable maps in a format commonly used by planners. Both the
asset based method and the new technologies enabled youth to better present their
findings—the maps—to city officials and planners, and thus access and impact the
planning process. Table 2 categorizes a series of projects that utilized mapping based on
the following criteria: inclusion of quantitative spatial data; inclusion of qualitative
data; use of an asset based methodology to generate maps; and the direct and
measurable impact of the project in the community or policy.

!
 !"#$%&'(&Mapping Literature Analysis&

Author(s) Description Data Methodology Impact

Quantitative/ Qualitative Asset Geo- Services Policy Land
Spatial based technologies use
Amsden et al., 2003 Mapping perceptions of environment No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
by children.
Amsden & Van Mapping of youth friendly health Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Wynsberghe, 2005 services
Blanchet-Cohen, 2006 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Driskell, 2002 Mapping manual for GUIC Yes Yes Yes No No No
Gerson, 2007 Mapping of services and amenities in Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Brazilian cities
Hart, 1979 Mapping of local community by Yes Yes No No No No No
children
Hooberman, 2008 Community landscape asset mapping Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
for the Chicago Department of Public
Health
Horelli, L., & Kaaja, Opportunities and constraints of Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
M. (2002). ‘Internet-Assisted urban planning’
with young people
Hurley et al., 2007 Evolving Partnerships in Community Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
(EPIC) Toolkit
Lozano, Granados & A mapping guide for immigrant and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Herrera, 2005 refugee youth
Lifecycles, 2008 A website—youthcore.ca—mapping Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
youth determined community and
institutional assets
Lynch, 1979 Mapping of local community by Yes Yes No No No No No
children
 MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 13

Mcknight & Asset Based Community development No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Kretzman, 1996 - Mapping manual
TakingITGlobal, 2006 A Cross-Canada mapping of youth-led Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
and/or highly youth-engaged
initiatives
UN-HABITAT, 2008 Mapping of Dar es Salaam by youth Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Wridt, 2006 A neighborhood mapping guide for Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
children at an Elementary School

!
 Table 1 reveals that none of the projects done before 2006 used geo-technologies
such as GIS. This is due to either the unavailability of the technology at the time, and/or
its cost and difficulty of use (Dennis, 2006). The projects that had a limited impact in
land use, services, or policy were Lynch’s (1979) and Hart’s (1979). One commonality
between these two projects was that though each of these projects did produce maps,
none of those maps were rendered through geo-spatial technologies. The maps in each of
these projects were used to facilitate the learning of the young people as well as for
research purposes. This is not to say that each of these researchers did not attempt to
affect change in land use, but the barriers that they faced in regards to the city
bureaucracy and government were indomitable, with the youth not able to, in Dennis’s
words (2006), speak the language of planning power. This review is of a small number
of projects that used maps, and thus no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the
data. Yet the data suggest a trend in that when geo-technologies are used to produce
maps, they can enhance the capacities of the youth projects in terms of impact, allowing
young people to engage the local governance system in a more robust manner, and
further their ability to have more direct and substantive impact in the realms of policy,
land use, and/or services.

An illuminating article in regard to the question of impact is Don't just listen do

something! Lessons learned about governance from the Growing Up in Cities project
(Chawla et al., 2005). Chawla et al. analyze the experiences of nine practitioners of
GUIC programs in regard to the successes and challenges of GUIC, specifically in the
area “doing something.” Chawla et al. recognize at the beginning of the article that
GUIC had similar challenges in the 70s as it did up to the writing of the article in getting
“adults in power to invest in actually implementing some of the recommendations they
receive and making young people partners in creating better communities” (Chawla,
2005, p. 4), even with the global recognition within the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1987), Action 21 (1992), and the HABTIAT Agenda (1996) that children and
youth have the right to have a say in the decisions which affect them.
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 15

Most of the practitioners found that they were able to make short-term, tangible
neighborhood changes that directly related to the project. More elusive were long-term
change to policies. The major barriers identified were political in nature, either a lack of
interest and/or corruption of local officials or a change in government or political
environment. The lack of experience by the coordinators of the projects in political
lobbying was also mentioned. Malone (as cited in Chawla et al., 2005) identifies another
barrier to action that relates directly to mapping and the capturing of data:

I still look across at mountains of drawings, surveys, children’s words and ideas
that fill every space of my office and overflow into my home, and realize I have
hardly scraped the surface. This is not a new phenomenon for any research work,
but it is still a limitation that we need to face. At this point in the development of
GUIC, I believe we need to consider how to make the findings we have accrued
available to a wider global audience. While many of the results have been
presented in academic publications as neatly analyzed outcomes, I believe that
city councils, children and youth need access to the raw data so that they can
draw out similarities and differences across sites and across time. (p. 20, italics
added)

Malone’s statement identifies two significant issues for GUIC and other
participatory planning processes. Often in the drive to assure that youth are heard, too
much data are gathered with no plan on how to analyze it. This was also the case in my
own experiences with Participatory Action Research (PAR) and programs such as GUIC.
Blanchet-Cohen and I undertook a youth mapping project for the United Nations
International Children's Conference on the Environment (ICCE) that took place in
Victoria, British Columbia, in May of 2002. In this project, we coordinated a team of
youth who engaged 400 children from 60 countries around the world. We utilized
mapping as a way to gather data in a participatory way from the participants, and used the
data as the basis of a policy statement on children’s perceptions of the environment. This
paper fed into the deliberations of world leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa the following year. We had huge
amounts of data from the mapping process, so much so that it was impossible to analyze

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 16

it in the coding method we had chosen, forcing us to pare down the data (Amsden et al.,
2003). Even when pared down, we ended up with over 2200 coded items, which, once
analyzed, had a significant impact, allowing young people a voice at WSSD (Blanchet-
Cohen & Rainbow, 2006; UN, 2002a; UN 2002b). As Malone expresses it, children,
youth and those in government need to find a method to efficiently and effectively
analyze “the raw data so that they can draw out similarities and differences across sites
and across time” (Chawla, 2005, p. 20, emphasis added). It is my contention that had we
had geo-location technologies in this and the other examples, we could have expedited
the collection of data as well the analysis and eventual use by young people in
governance processes.

The next section will demonstrate how new geo-location techniques can be used to
engage young people in both the collection and analysis of data, and how it is an effective
tool for youth to express, advocate for, and affect change. A transformation has taken
place with the move from paper or print based maps to maps that can be input, analyzed,
and disseminated through geo-location technologies. This section goes through an asset
mapping process, using as an example a mapping training undertaken on behalf of UN-
HABITAT in 2009 in East Africa, a training that became the basis of a mapping manual
(UN-HABITAT, 2011). This example demonstrates concretely how youth can engage in
spatial mapping and sets the stage to show how the maps now created can be used to
facilitate the involvement of youth in local governance and planning processes.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 17

The silenced are not just incidental to the curiosity of the researcher but are the
masters of inquiry into the underlying causes of the events in their world. In this
context research becomes a means of moving them beyond silence into a quest to
proclaim the world.

Paulo Freire (1986)

Community Mapping with the One Stop Youth Resource Centre, East Africa

The following outlines a series of mapping workshops that were undertaken as

part of a larger project that focused on training approximately 60 youth from the One
Stop Youth Resource centres based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Kampala, Uganda, and
Nairobi, Kenya, in community mapping (UN-HABITAT, unpublished). Muldoon and I
conducted the mapping workshops in November of 2009 as part of a contract with UN-
HABITAT. The goals of the workshops were to train youth in mapping as a participatory
planning tool, and as well to test an asset mapping manual (currently in press). The
mapping was done following the tenants of participatory action research (PAR) that
recognizes the importance of engaging those who are traditionally passive recipients as
active participants in their own education and development and in the development of
their community (Freire, 1986; Driskell, 2002). The goal of PAR is not only to research,
but also to engage marginalized communities, in this case youth, in action and advocacy
to effect positive change within their communities (Ragan & Wilkinson, 2009;
Wadsworth, 1998).

The following figures are from these mapping workshops. Figures 2 and 3
represent the Inside/Out Personal Asset Mapping Exercise, developed initially for the
aforementioned UNEP ICCE (Amsden, Blanchet-Cohen, & Ragan, 2003). Image 4 and 5
are of the Community Mapping Exercise, where youth are provided with GPS units,
video cameras, and still cameras to map and document key assets of the community,
which are later uploaded to the Internet and become the basis for “Youth Friendly City
Guides.” This method of mapping and descriptive research has been explored for over 30
years, yet with the advent of the new geo-spatial technologies, the different data are no
longer only captured in one-off artistic pieces, but can be collated, stored, analyzed, and
disseminated broadly over the Internet. This enables youth not only to better explore the

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 18

relationships between spatial and social elements in the community, it also reflects their
increased understanding of the community at large through the Internet.

In the Inside/Out exercise, youth are asked to use a life-size image of a body to
collectively write down their personal strengths within the inner outline of the image. On
the outside of the body image they write down community or institutional assets. The
facilitator works with the youth to explore the relationships between the internal assets,
most often personal characteristics, values, or skills and their external assets, most often
key relationships, institutions, or community agencies.

!"#$%&'()'*&%+,-./'.++&0+1

!"#$%&'2 Community and Institutional Assets

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
All photography by D. Ragan, 2009

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 19

The personal asset mapping done in this exercise is informed by three

frameworks—Kretzman and McKnight’s Asset Based Community Development (1993),
the asset based framework designed by the Search Institute (2010), and the resilience
framework of Bernard (2004). Each of these frameworks recognizes the inherent
capacities of youth, vesting them with the agency to address issues that are of importance
to them.

Assets Based Community Development or ABCD is a methodology which is

rooted in the mapping or inventorying peoples personal and community assets, a
process that lends itself well to youth development. (Kretzman, Mcknight, 1993).
What is unique with this methodology is that it starts with the premise that youth are
assets to their community no matter what their social, cultural or economic
background. Instead of the the youth undertaking aneeds assessment as a way to
gather data, they instead undertake an asset assessments or asset mapping, to give
a more holistic and positive picture of youth within the context of their community.
Mapping is combined with community development and participatory action research
methods allowing youth to act as as experts in their community, giving them the

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 20

responsibility to gather, analyze and interpret their own data in partnership with
researchers.

The Search Institute identified 40 positive assets comprised of experiences and

qualities that promote the positive development of youth. These assets are rooted in
research on adolescent development, and are grouped in two categories: prevention,
which are assets focused on protective factors that inhibit high risk behaviors, and
resilience, which are factors that increase the ability of youth to withstand adversity. The
Search Institute’s research (2010) found that young people who report having these assets
are more likely to be good leaders, healthy, value diversity, and successful in school. As
well, these young people are reported to be less likely to have alcohol or drug problems,
to be violent, or to practice unsafe sex (Search Institute, 2010).

Bernard (2004) created her resiliency framework based on factors that contribute
to resiliency within youth. She defines resiliency as “the ability of youth to withstand
and grow from challenging conditions” (Bernard, 2004, p. 13). This resiliency
framework identifies individual and environmental qualities that allow youth to develop
in a healthy way, form meaningful relationships, and avoid drug addiction, health
problems, and violence.

The innovation in the mapping exercises here are that they are part of a
methodology that links the above personal assets to community and institutional assets,
which are then geo-located on a map. This allows participating youth to not only
understand their own assets and gain the benefits from this, but also to understand which
community and institutional assets support them and where they can be found within the
community.

Figure 4 and 5 demonstrate some of the methodologies that are used in the
community and institutional mapping process. Youth are asked to make a list of assets in
the community that support the assets identified in the personal exercise—for example, if
creativity was identified, then the youth would be asked what community and/or
institutional support there is for this asset. Youth write these community/institutional
assets on sticky notes, locate the assets on a Google Earth generated map, and then stick

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 21

those notes on the asset (see figure 4). As many researchers have found (Lynch, 1979;
Driskell, 2002; Hart, 1979; Wridt, 2010), youth are able to identify transportation
infrastructure such as roads, as well as landmarks such as their own homes, schools, and
small businesses. Following this process, the youth broke into three groups: Each group
had a GPS unit, which they used to get to the sticky noted area. Once there, they marked
the GPS point and took a photo. One group also had a video camera to use for an
interview at some of the GPS marked sites. The GPS points were then uploaded to the
Internet, with the photos and videos appended to the data points (UN-HABITAT, 2011).

!
"#$%&'!(!)*++%,#-.!/011#,$!'2'&3#4'!!

!"#$%&'(')"*&+#%,-./',0*'1.+2+#%,-./'

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 22

Up until recently, qualitative components—such as videographic, photographic,

or auditory ones—were often not integrated effectively into maps due to technological
challenges. With the advancement of technology, qualitative data can be embedded
directly into the maps: New maps can now not only be displayed geo-spatially, linked to
current street maps to cities, but photos, videos, music, artwork, and other qualitative data
can be directly linked to the mapped space. Thus the new mapping methods utilized in
this process allow these components to be reflected, both in the process of creating the
maps as well as the output.

!"#$%&'( Digital Map

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 23

YouthCore.ca Map, 2010

The youth generated GIS data are valuable for research and policy purposes.
Researchers have combined youth generated data with data sets available from cities. For
example, Wridt (2010) undertook a study utilizing mapping with 10 and 11 year old
children at an elementary school in Denver, Colorado, looking at children's perceptions
and use of their neighborhood for physical activity. Wridt used a multi-method approach
that combined mapping with photography, drawing, time diaries, focus groups, and
cognitive mapping. What was interesting and applicable to this paper was Wridt’s
combination of data collected by the city with data provided by the children. The most
telling example of the power of this “data mashup”7 is the comparison between child
reported risks and crime.

!"#$%&'(')*"+,%&-'.-,'/0+"1&'/&%1&23"0-4'05')%"6&'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"!#Data mashup” is a term used to describe the “mashing” together of different media and

data online.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 24

The circle outlines representing the clustering of child reported crime, and the
colors report the density of police reported crime. This finding is a reflection of the type
of crime reported and tracked by the police (for example, burglary, aggravated assault,
and larceny) and how children themselves identify risk (for example, bad people, gangs,
and graffiti). The lack of correlation between the two sets of data suggests that for there
to be a safer environment for the children there would need to be a refocusing on police
resources to address the child identified crime. This example shows the power of new
mapping technologies, allowing qualitative data traditionally not recognized by urban
officials to be compared with quantitative data gathered by institutions such as the police.

Children and youth demonstrate the capacity to both understand spatial data and
relate it to the “real world.” New geo-spatial and multi-media technologies, if they can
be afforded, are not a significant barrier to young people’s involvement, and in the cases
outlined enhanced their ability to learn about their community, as well as create output
that can further their ability to engage in community planning processes.

Conclusion

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 25

Mapping has been used as a key methodology to engage youth in urban planning.
First used by Lynch (1971) in the GUIC program in the 1970s, mapping provided a tool
in which young people were able to use their innate ability to map their own local
environments (Blaut, 1987), and in doing so, increase their awareness and knowledge of
their communities (Lynch, 1979; Hart, 1979). This knowledge in turn better enabled
them to engage in formal planning processes. The passing of the CRC in 1989 (UN,
1989) was an impetus for a growing movement to engage youth in issues that directly
impact their lives. Tools and methodologies were developed (Driskell, 2002) with the
aim to enhance youth engagement. Mapping became one tool to engage youth in
realizing their rights, a process that was often challenging due to the unwillingness and/or
lack of understanding of those working in government (Chawla et al., 2005; Checkoway,
2003; Driskell et al., 2001; EYA, 2003; Gerson, 2007; Gurstein et al., 2003; Horellis et
al., 2002).

Beginning in the 1990s, mapping was further refined and became a tool of choice
for community development workers and youth agencies who sought to directly effect
community decision-making and planning processes, especially with marginalized groups
in both the developed and developing world (Amsden & Van Wynsberghe, 2005;
Blanchet-Cohen, 2006; Gerson, 2007; Hurley et al, 2007; Lozano et al., 2005; Lifecycles,
2008; UN-HABITAT, 2008; UN-HABITAT, 2011; Wridt, 2010). During this period
there was an increased use of geo-spatial technologies as a way to improve the output of
mapping processes, allowing young people to produce a professional product that could
easily be incorporated into planning processes. With the growth of geo-spatial
technologies, mapping became the central methodology around which programs were
developed. Maps were created that reflected youth perceptions on a range of issues—
from crime to health to recreation—with youth from a range of populations such as
aboriginals, immigrants, refugees, and slum dwellers. These maps allowed young people
to enter into a dialogue with planners and governments with the goal of advocating for
more services and activities for young people that would also be delivered in a more
efficient and effective way.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 26

In conclusion, mapping has long been recognized as an important tool, both for
young people’s personal development and the development of their community. The
basic mapping concept has not changed substantively since their use by Lynch (1979)
and Hart (1979), that being the facilitating of young people to use their innate geo-spatial
abilities to better understand and engage in their communities. What has changed is the
ability of young people, on their own and with the support of adult allies and experienced
youth, to project their spatial understanding of their community into formalized planning
and governance processes, and through the engagement in these processes advocate for
their needs. Mapping as a method further realizes young people’s rights to affect change
in issues of importance to themselves, thus bettering the lives of all.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 27

Reference List
Al-Zoabi, D. A. Y. (2001). Children’s mental maps and neighborhood design of

AbuNuseir, Jordan. Retrieved from

www.araburban.org/childcity/Papers/English/Alzoabi.pdf

Amsden, J., Blanchet-Cohen, N., & Ragan, D. (2003). Children becoming social actors:

Using visual maps to understand children's views of environmental change.

Children, Youth and Environments, 13(2), pp. 1-10.

"#$%&'(!)*(!"+(!,*(!-../+0(!1*(!23(!4*(!5676'(!8*(!9!:3;&<=>6(!:*!?@AABC*!!"#$%&

'"((#)*$+&,--.$&/011*)2&/0)#034&5""63.$&7C*!D6'<+3E&F(!GF/0/$=!1+.3#H/6I!

-'E/F+'#&'06.!J+30=!"../6'<&*

Amsden, J., & Van Wynsberghe, R. (2005). Community mapping as a research tool with

youth, Action Research, 3(4), pp. 357-381

Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What I have learned. San Francisco: 4&$0!-%*.

Bartlett, S. (2005). Integrating children’s rights into municipal action: A review of

progress and lessons Learned. Children, Youth and Environments 15(2), pp. 18–

40.

Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2006). Creative tools: Civic engagement of young people in

Vancouver. Victoria, British Columbia. International Institute for Child Rights

and Development (IICRD).

G.6'<=&0K1+=&'(!L*(!9!56/'H+M(!G*!?@AANC*!O6F0'&F$=/;!H&0M&&'!<=/.%F&'!6'%!6%3.0$P&

'%*38%""89&7:?QC(!QQBRQ@N*!!

Blaut, J. M. (1987). Place perception in perspective. Journal of Environmental

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 28

Psychology, 7(4), 297–305.

Blaut, J. M., & Stea, D. (1971). Studies of geographic learning. Annals of the Association

of American Geographers, 61(2), 387–393.

Blaut, J. M., Stea, D., Spencer, C., & Blades, M. (2003). Mapping as a cultural and

cognitive universal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1),

165–185.

Chawla, L., Blanchet-Cohen, N., Cosco, N., Driskell, D., Kruger, J., Malone, K., Moore,

R., Percy-Smith, R., (2005). Don’t just listen do something! Lessons learned

about governance from the Growing Up in Cities project. Children, Youth and

Environments, 15, 53–88.

Chawla, L. and Heft, H. (2001) Children’s competence and the ecology of communities:

a functional approach to the evaluation of participation. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 22: 201–216.

Chawla, L., (2002). Growing Up in an Urbanising World. Paris: UNESCO.

Chawla, L., (2001). Insight, creativity and thoughts on the environment: Integrating

children and youth into human settlement development. Environment and

Urbanization, 14(2), 11–22.

Checkoway, B., (2003). Young people as competent citizens. Development Journal: An International

Forum 38, 298–309.

Cincotta, R. (2005). State of the world 2005 global security brief #2: Youth bulge, underemployment raise

risks of civil conflict. Retrieved from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/76

Clifford, S. (2010). Places, people and parish maps. Retrieved from

http://www.commonground.org.uk/parishmaps/m-ppp.html

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 29

Corsi, M. (2002). The child friendly cities initiative in Italy. Environment and

Urbanization, 14(2), 169-179.

Dennis, S. F. J. (2006). Prospects for qualitative GIS at the intersection of youth

development and participatory urban planning. Environment and Planning, 38,

2039–2054.

Driskell, D. (2002). Creating better cities with children and youth: A manual for

participation. Paris: UNESCO. Pg 134-139.

Driskell, D., Kanchan B. & Chawla, L. (2001). Rhetoric, reality and resilience:

Overcoming obstacles to young people’s participation in development. Journal

Name, 13(1), pp. 77–89.

Driskell, D., & Kudva, N. (2009). Creating space for participation: The role of

organizational practice in structuring youth participation. Journal of the

Community Development Society, 1, 22-29.

Environmental Youth Alliance. (2003). Final report to the united way of the lower

mainland for the youth engine project: Youth friendly health services. Vancouver,

Canada: EYA.

Freire, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Press.

Gerson, D. (2007). From community mapping to youth mainstreaming: Towards a youth

engagement strategy. Retrieved from

http://www.chs.ubc.ca/consortia/outputs2/NPC_Student_paper-

Youth_Engagement_Strategy-Gerson-2007.pdf

Gurstein, P., Lovato, C., & Ross, S. (2003). Youth participation in planning: Strategies

for social action. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(2), pp. 249–274.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 30

Hart, R. (1979). Children's experience of place. New York: Irvington.

Hurley, D., Presland, D., & Taylor, M. (2007). Evolving partnerships in community

(EPIC) toolkit. Vancouver, Canada: PEERS Vancouver.

Hooberman, J. (2008). Community landscape asset mapping. Chicago Department of

Public Health. 1–12.

Horelli, L. (1998). Creating child-friendly environments: Case studies on children's

participation in three European countries. Childhood, 5(2), 225-239.

Horelli, L., & Kaaja, M. (2002). Opportunities and constraints of Internet-assisted urban

planning with young people. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 191–

200.

Kretzman, J. P. & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A

path towards finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Evanston, Ill: Center

for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Neighborhood Innovations Network,

Northwestern University.

Lifecycles. (2008). Youthcore.ca: Greater Victoria’s online youth portal. Retrieved 03/07,

2008, from http://www.youthcore.ca/

Lozano, N., Granados, F., & Herrera, V. (2005). Resource guide for immigrant and

refugee youth. Vancouver, BC: Environmental Youth Alliance.

Lynch, K. (1979). Growing up in cities: Studies of the spatial environment of adolescence

in Cracow, Melbourne, Mexico City, Salta, Toluca and Warsaw. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: MIT Press.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 31

Mallan, K., Foth, M., Greenaway, R., & Young, G. T. (2010). Serious playground: Using

second life to engage high school students in urban planning. Learning, Media and

Technology, 35(2), 203.

McCall, M. K. (2003) Seeking good governance in participatory GIS: A review of

processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial

planning. Habitat International 27, 549-573

Mcknight, J., & Kretzman, J. (1996). Mapping community capacity. Minneapolis:

Institute for Policy, Research Northwestern University.

Matthews, H. (1995). Culture, environmental experience and environmental awareness:

Making sense of young Kenyan children’s views of place. The Geographical

Journal, 161(3), 285–295.

National Intelligence Council. (2008). Global trends 2025: A transformed world.

Washington DC: United States.

"#$%&'!()!*+,,-.!/01023%!/454%6!47!8&45469!/#3:;240<!(%=!>7?#&;075!

@%1#&5A!>75%&7054#703!/%75&%!?#&!B:65047023%!/454%6'

Ragan, D., Amsden, J., Ao, K., Hu, W., Elliot, C., & Tupechka, T. (2003). Youth

community asset mapping manual booklet 1. Vancouver, BC: Environmental

Youth Alliance.

Ragan, D., & Wilkinson, C. (2009). Growing up with expectations: Better understanding

the expectations of community partners in participatory action research projects.

Les Ateliers De l’éthique, 4(1), 67–164.

Sabo, K., (2003). A Vygotskian perspective on youth participatory evaluation. New

Directions for Evaluation, 98, pp. 13–24.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 32

Search Institute. (2010). Search institute. Retrieved 05/10, May, 2010, from

http://www.search-institute.org/developmental-assets

Sobel, D. (1998). Mapmaking with children. Heinemann, Sense of Place Education for

the Elementary Years. (pg176-190)

Stea, D. (2005). Jim Blaut's youngest mappers: Children's geography and the geography

of children. Antipode, 37(5), 990–1002.

TakingITGlobal. (2006). Cross-Canada mapping of youth-led and/or highly youth-

engaged initiatives: Final Report. Montreal, Quebec: J. W. McConnell Family

Foundation.

Talen, E. & M. Coffindaffer (1999). The utopianism of children: An empirical study of

children’s neighborhood design preferences. Journal of Planning Education and

Research, 18(4), pp. 321–331.

Tsai, J. & Van Wart, S. (2010). Local ground: A platform for collecting local geo-spatial

knowledge. Unpublished Masters, School of Information, University of California

in Berkeley, California, USA.

Tupechka, T. (2001). The power of maps and the politics of place: Community mapping

in Vancouver's Grandview woodland. Unpublished Master of Arts, Simon Fraser

University, Vancouver, British Columbia.

United Nations, (2002a). Children’s statement, world summit on sustainable

development. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South

Africa.

United Nations, (2002b). The Johannesburg declaration on sustainable development.

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Johannesburg, South Africa.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 33

United Nations, (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York: United Nations.

United Nations, (1992). Agenda 21, Rio declaration, forest principles. New York: United

Nations.

UN-HABITAT, (1997). HABITAT Agenda; New York: United Nations

UN-HABITAT, (2008). Dar es salaam community asset mapping guide: Guidella No. 1.

Nairobi, Kenya: UN HABITAT.

UN-HABITAT, (2011). Asset mapping guide for urban youth centres. Nairobi, Kenya. .

United Nations Centre for Human Settlement, (1997). The Istanbul declaration and the

habitat agenda. Nairobi: United Nations.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.

Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research

International Paper 2. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-

ywadsworth98.html

Watkins, C (2010). Learning, performance and improvement. Institute of Education

International Network for School Improvement Research Matters Series No. 34.

London Centre for Leadership in Learning. London.

World Bank. 2007. World Bank development report 2007: Development and the next

generation. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Wridt, P. (2006). The Kid’s hood book: A neighbourhood guidebook by the students and

teachers of Stedman elementary school. Boulder, Colorado: University of

Colorado.

!
MAPPING AND YOUTH IN PLANNING 34

Wridt, P. (2010). A qualitative GIS approach to mapping urban neighborhoods with

children to promote physical activity and child-friendly community planning.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(1), 129–147.

Yufen, C. (2001). Map spatial cognition research and spatial information visualization.

Journal of Geographical Sciences, 11(0), 79–85.