Sense of Place in Child Care Environments

Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 34, No. 6, June 2007 (Ó 2007) DOI: 10.1007/s10643-006-0148-1 Sense of Place in Child Care Environments Marilyn A. Read1,2 The exterior design of existing preschool environments is evaluated in the context of contemporary writings by architects focusing on creating designs that nurture childrenÕs emotions. Sense of place research is discussed in relation to young childrenÕs experiences. Findings reveal that the majority of sites included in the study incorporated many physical design elements that create a sense of place for children in preschool environments, including small-scale structures, windows, landscaping, natural wall materials, and thresholds. Recommendations for administrators and directors planning and designing a new or remodeled preschool environment include incorporating features that reflect home-like environments with windows, thresholds, and landscaping. KEY WORDS: child care centers; childrenÕs environments; sense of place. among them is often the importance of the meaning of home environment when people discuss positive affect toward a place. The preschool environment is a space where home-like characteristics of design intermingle with educational design elements within the space. The curriculum of the preschool environment is designed to reflect many aspects of childrenÕs home environments, (i.e., meal time, nap time, dramatic play) while including additional spaces for cognitive and social development (e.g., nature/science center, reading area, music/movement area). In concert with the interior design, the context of the exterior design of the preschool should reflect familiar environmental factors including form, materials, landscaping, and variety in design to create an inviting and welcoming entry into the space. INTRODUCTION What do preschool children see when they approach the child care center where they often spend more than half of their days over the course of each week? Do they see a welcoming entry made of familiar materials or a stark doorway of a building of metal siding? Is the structure a reflection of their home environment or is it one that is unfamiliar to them? Does the building have a character of anonymity or one of a child care center? Hence, the overarching inquiry of this discussion is concerned with the prevalence of exterior design features in preschools that help create a sense of place for the children who spend time there. This paper seeks to shed some light on these questions. Place attachment, sense of place, and place identity are concepts used in the environmental psychology literature to describe peopleÕs emotional relationships to place. These concepts are often intertwined by definition, meaning, and application. However, the common theme SENSE OF PLACE There are many divergent definitions of sense of place (Gustafson, 2001). For the built environment, sense of place is often described as a place that has meaning, a place that provides emotional stability, and a place where an individual acquires knowledge through experiences of the senses (e.g., seeing color and form, feeling texture and light). Researchers of 1 Design and Human Environment, Oregon State University, 224 Milam Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5101, USA. 2 Correspondence should be directed to Marilyn A. Read, Design and Human Environment, Oregon State University, 224 Milam Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5101, USA., e-mail: marilyn.read@ oregonstate.edu 387 1082-3301/07/0600-0387/0 Ó 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 388 the design of childrenÕs environments have proposed many theoretical ideas of childrenÕs sense of place concerned with scale (Bell, 2002, 2006); urban and rural spaces (Derr, 2006); and natural settings (Faber Taylor & Kuo, 2006; Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004). Derr (2002) describes the multiple scales on which children experience sense of place from childscale experiences using the example of creating forts to family-scale experiences when values of cultural and historical meaning are instilled. Additionally, she identifies a community-level scale where children learn about place relations and cultural values, proposing that children learn about place and nature from each identified scale of sense of place. Sense of place research has focused on children 5 years and older (Derr, 2002; Hay, 1998). Manzo (2003) underscores the confusion in defining the concepts of sense of place, place attachment and place identity and the importance of empirically investigating them in a framework that focuses on the dynamic qualities of peopleÕs relationships to spaces. Sense of place can provide children with feelings of belonging and stability. Hay (1998) notes that young childrenÕs places tend to be close to home with most of the childÕs time spent with their family at home, with friends, and at their school. Certainly preschool children experience feelings about their child care environments. Undoubtedly, places are fundamental to the childÕs developing identity and self-concept (Korpela, 2002; Spencer & Blades, 2006). The youngest children, infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are often excluded from research on sense of place most likely because they are not able to articulate to researchers their experiences of place. House and Rule (2005) describe childrenÕs limited ability to describe their emotional states because they use words that refer to actions and objects primarily at this age level. However, that does not mean that the design of the child care center is not communicating important information to them which they are receiving and interpreting every time they enter the environment. We know that children are highly impacted by their experiences of place. Clark (2005) notes that ‘‘children see the centre as their world, and very much a landscape of play and discovery’’ (Clark, 2005, p. 12). There is very limited cross-referencing between theories proposed by environmental psychologists and application utilized by design practitioners. The writings of Christopher Day (1990, 2002) and Mark Dudek (2000, 2005) have made great strides in Read proposing and creating model, idealized preschool environments for children. However, examples often represent unrealistic prototypes for typical preschool environments because they are usually new structures designed on a grand scale with large budgets for customized details and spaces. Dudek (2000) categorizes the meaning in contemporary architecture for preschools as (a) organic, (b) late modernism, (c) moderate/neutral/contextual, and (d) modular. The third category is the most common one for the typical preschool environment in the U.S. This discussion of the categories is extremely important for understanding the state of the design of preschool environments. The designs proposed by Day would be categorized as organic form in DudekÕs framework. The work of Day most closely resembles design that emphasizes sense of place. Day (1990) suggests that creating a building that is meaningful to the soul requires integrating a variety of critical design elements including: (a) natural materials appropriate for the site; (b) forms and shapes that relate to or contrast with the surroundings; (c) a threshold between the exterior and interior; (d) vegetation, (e) spatial variety, and (f) sunlight. The goal of the designer should be to create spaces that nourish the soul. Moore (1987) discusses design features as they relate to childrenÕs development in preschool environments. Exterior entries should include design features that invite parents and children into the space via ease of wayfinding with signage (Sanoff, 1991) or other design elements. Entrances must also provide safe passage using lighting and ramps while utilizing color and inviting materials, such as brick, glass, and wood along with natural elements such as landscaping that define the entrance. Olds (2001) emphasizes the importance of small-scale design and human scale materials, such as brick, stone, clapboard, and adobe. The roofline of a structure is also an important element of the buildingÕs image. A low, visible, sloping roofline provides feelings of security (Olds, 2001). These design elements create an environment that is appealing to children and parents. We know the designs described and illustrated by Day (2002) and Dudek (2000) have value for children and we also know the practical recommendations of Moore (1987) and Olds (2001). It seems a goal for designers and re-designers of childrenÕs preschool environments would be to find a middle-ground that incorporates aspects of theories of sense of place with realistic design programs for existing preschools. Sense of Place in Child Care Environments EXTERIOR DESIGN FEATURES Bell (2006) summarized research on the impact of scale on childrenÕs experience of the built environment, noting that scale certainly matters to childrenÕs cognition and development. Scale and alienation are linked, large-scale buildings dwarf people and, thus, make them feel unrecognized as individuals. Scale is concerned with how people experience it. We know that large-scale buildings, those larger than one story in height, can be imposing to small children because their eye-line is lower than an adultÕs eye-line. Those structures considered to be small-scale are defined as a typical size of a one-story structure. Small-scale structures are designed to the human scale, which makes them visually and physically accessible. A large-scale structure is defined as a building with a roofline above one story or wider than a typical single family dwelling. Windows on the façade and a threshold area are related to the scale of a structure. Windows into the structure are important for children and parents to feel comfortable entering the space. Psychologically, windows can make a large-scale structure feel more accessible because of visibility into the space. Additionally, natural light creates ambient, pleasant lighting on the interior space. Thresholds are valuable for the transition experience from the exterior to the interior of the building. The psychological benefits of a transition area help users adapt to the interior environment. As in the case of windows, a transition area can visually reduce the size of a façade by emphasizing the entry area on a smaller scale than the actual roofline of the building. Individuals are more receptive to the interior environment when they have the preparatory experience of walking through a threshold area at the entrance to a building. The roof design of the building is important for conveying a home-like atmosphere to the children approaching the entrance. Gable roofs, those with a pitch at the center of the structure, create a form that reflects the typical form of a home. Flat roofs and shed roofs communicate industrial or institutional building types to the user. Wall materials that express a comfortable setting are made of natural materials such as brick and wood. Materials that are close to their natural source communicate sensory messages to individuals. Metal siding on the walls, as in the roof design, suggests an industrial or institutional setting. Landscaping is an essential element for the exterior design of preschools. The profound meaning of nature to childrenÕs experiences has been 389 extensively reported in the literature. By refining DayÕs (1990) framework for creating a building which nourishes the soul and incorporating practical recommendations from Moore (1987), this study looks at the prevalence of exterior design elements in existing preschool environments which may enhance childrenÕs sense of place. The exteriors of 86 child care centers were photographed and analyzed based on the design elements described above. FINDINGS In terms of scale, 46% of structures were smallscale and 54% of structures were large-scale. Photograph 1 shows an example of a small-scale building with a gabled roof and Photograph 2 shows an example of a large-scale building with a flat roof. Seventy-one percent of structures had gabled roofs, 28% of structures had flat roofs, and 1% of structures had shed roofs. A threshold of some type of design was seen at 81% of centers. Nineteen percent of centers did not have a threshold. Photograph 3 illustrates a threshold area that emphasizes the entry Photograph 1. Photograph 2. 390 Read Photograph 3. Photograph 6. Table I.. Wall Materials Used on Exterior of Structure (the number of centers, n = 86) Material Brick Wood Metal Stucco Wood/brick Stucco/rock Stucco/brick Concrete masonry units Percent of Centers (%) 36 16 15 2 1 1 1 1 Photograph 4. located in Alabama where brick is the predominant material used on the exterior of structures. Windows on the entry walls were evident at 80% of centers. Nineteen percent of centers did not have windows and 1% of centers blocked the windows with shades, as seen in Photograph 6. Signage was used on the exterior of the structure at 81% of centers. Surprisingly 19% of centers did not have any signage. Some form of landscaping was used at 82% of centers while 18% of centers did not use landscaping or natural elements. DISCUSSION Photograph 5. to the structure. Other structures had threshold areas defined on the exterior of the structure as represented in Photograph 4. Photographs 1, 3, and 5 depict brick (63%) for the wall material; Photograph 5 shows wood (16%), and Photographs 2 and 3 represent metal siding (15%) for the wall materials on the exterior of the structure. Stucco was used at 2% of the facilities. See Table I for all combinations of materials and percentages. These preschools are Photographs taken of the centers revealed the use of a wide range of exterior design materials, elements, and light. More than half of the preschools were large-scale designs. This finding is troublesome because the literature clearly describes the importance of small-scale design for childrenÕs spaces. One explanation of this is the affiliation of the preschools with a church or corporate facility. Several centers were located within a structure with a mixed-use occupancy. Additionally, many centers were originally designed to be store-front, outdoor mall spaces Sense of Place in Child Care Environments as seen in Photograph 6. The changes that can be made on these facilities are limited because of code regulations and space requirements. Thresholds and gabled roofs were incorporated at the majority of the centers. Exterior thresholds can be designed by creating a space surrounding the entry door with such elements as landscaping, partial walls, and overhead awnings and columns. While the majority of centers incorporated brick and wood, a substantial number were structures of metal siding. These buildings tended to be located in rural areas. The facility of metal siding communicated a temporary status often with limited or no landscaping elements. One way of creating a more welcoming entry to these structures would be to visually reduce the overall expanse of metal siding by developing the threshold area to create a focal point to the preschool. It was surprising to find a considerable number of centers that did not have windows to the interior of the space on the entry facade. Visual access to a space is extremely important for adults and children. Unfortunately, solving this concern is impossible without re-designing the building. It was also unexpected to see several centers with no landscaping or natural elements at the entry door. Again, the literature stresses the importance of incorporating natural elements in the design for childrenÕs sense of security. Signage at the centers was evident at the majority of the sites, however, for the sites that did not have signage, wayfinding for the parents and children was very confusing. For safety reasons, signage is sometimes not used on the exterior of preschool buildings. Home-like elements have been incorporated in many centers, however, the exterior design of many of these facilities leave room for improvement. The exterior design of the majority of preschool environments did incorporate many elements thought to enhance childrenÕs sense of place. Centers tended to have familiar materials applied to the exterior walls. It should be noted that centers located in other parts of the country would have different wall materials that would be unfamiliar to children in the southeast. The concerns highlighted from this study center around those exterior designs that do not have welcoming entries, familiar materials, and windows to the interior of the space. This study is limited to child care centers designed using typical construction materials and styles in the U.S. Design of educational spaces in other countries is beyond the scope of this discussion. Researchers may focus on the cultural influences of design on child care settings in future 391 research studies. Places are spaces with identity. We know that forms, spaces, and light impact our emotions about a place. Preschool buildings communicate volumes of information to children each day they enter them. Further investigation needs to be done on childrenÕs interpretations of their own environments. How do children report their feelings about form, landscape, and light? This is an area of inquiry ripe for exploration and analysis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported with funding from the Interior Design Educators Council Special Projects Award, 1999–2000; the Auburn University Competitive Research Grant, 2000; and the Department of Consumer Affairs, Auburn University. REFERENCES Bell, S. (2002). Spatial cognition and scale: A child’s perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 9–27. Bell, S. (2006). Scale in children’s experience with the environment. In C. Spencer, & M. Blades (Eds.), Children and their environments: Learning, using and designing spaces (pp. 13– 25). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Clark, A. (2005). Talking and listening to children. In M. Dudek (Ed.), ChildrenÕs spaces (pp. 1–13). Oxford: Architectural Press. Day, C. (1990). Places of the soul. London: The Aquarian Press. Day, C. (2002). Spirit & place. Oxford: Architectural Press. Derr, V. (2002). ChildrenÕs sense of place in Northern New Mexico. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 125–137. Derr, V. (2006). ÔSometimes birds sound like fishÕ: Perspectives on childrenÕs place experiences. In C. Spencer, & M. Blades (Eds.), Children and their environments: Learning, using, and designing spaces (pp. 108–123). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Dudek, M. (2000). Kindergarten architecture: Spaces for the imagination (2nd ed.). London: Spon Press. Dudek, M. (2005). Children’s spaces. Oxford: Architectural Press. FaberTaylor, A., & Kuo, F. E. (2006). Is contact with nature important for healthy child development? State of the evidence. In C. Spencer, & M. Blades (Eds.), Children and their environments: Learning, using, and designing spaces (pp. 124–140). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Gustafson, P. (2001). Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 5–16. Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5–29. House, C., & Rule, A. (2005). PreschoolersÕ ideas of what makes a picture book illustration beautiful. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(5), 283–290. Korpela, K. (2002). ChildrenÕs environments. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 363–373). New York: Wiley. Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439–454. 392 Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47–61. Moore, G. T. (1987). The physical environment and cognitive development in child-care centers. In C. S. Weinstein, & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for children: The built environment and child development (pp. 41–72). New York: Plenum. Read Olds, A. R. (2001). Child care design guide. New York: McGraw Hill. Sanoff, H. (1991). Visual research methods in design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Spencer, C., & Blades, M. (2006). Children and their environments: Learning, using, and designing spaces. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Unviersity Press.