jordan's badia school location effects on the perception of child safety

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 09 October 2014, At: 14:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice & ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

Jordan's Badia School Location Effectson the Perception of Child SafetyMajd Al-Homoud & Salem Al-OunPublished online: 15 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Majd Al-Homoud & Salem Al-Oun (2009) Jordan's Badia School LocationEffects on the Perception of Child Safety, Planning Practice & Research, 24:4, 495-511, DOI:10.1080/02697450903327204

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697450903327204

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02697450903327204

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697450903327204

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ARTICLE

Jordan’s Badia School Location Effectson the Perception of Child SafetyMAJD AL-HOMOUD & SALEM AL-OUN

Abstract

Schools are vital points of trip origin and destination. Their location affects children’s safety ontheir daily rounds. Because of the lack of effective planning, most of Jordan’s Northeast Badia

schools are located in dispersed areas away from residential communities, which force most childrento walk for more than 5 minutes on dangerous traffic spines. This paper presents findings of a studyto investigate the attributes that affect perceived students’ safety in the Jordanian Badia, so as toinform the planning and design processes. The data were mainly collected using a random sampling

technique of 263 teachers from 72 schools representing 50 villages of the Northeast Badia, inaddition to interviews and field observations. The findings suggest that some public safety measurescan positively affect perceived children’s safety. Suggested solutions include provision of school

buses and construction of one comprehensive school for each cluster of villages by the Ministry ofEducation, and the school itself monitoring students’ arrival and departure. Planning authoritiesand municipalities must plan more effectively and implement land use plans for safe locations for

schools so as to address the factors that affect the safety of children around schools.

Introduction

Children’s safety in the vicinity of their home is a source of worry for parents(Bourgois, 1998; Kulynch, 2001). Schools are vital points of trip origin anddestination that shapes children’s ‘home range’ through their daily trips (Rapoport,1986). Children daily explore their environment on their way to school as part of theirfunctional distance; therefore, they become exposed to danger once this distancebecomes longer (Thurber & Malinowski, 1999). Land cost and scarcity push schoollocations to the periphery of communities, resulting in poor school connectivity andendangered children mobility (Beaumont & Pianca, 2002; Passmore, 2002; Salvesen& Hervey, 2003; Gurwitt, 2004; McMillan, 2005). School location is an importantdeterminant of exposure to traffic problems. Proximity to busy roads has beenassociated with exposure to traffic-related accidents (Green et al., 2004).In Jordan it is very common to see traffic volume grow rapidly through

residential streets. Residential streets are normally poorly designed, althoughpeople from different age groups regularly use them. Traffic planners use a variety

Dr Majd Al-Homoud, German-Jordanian University, Amman, Jordan.Email: [email protected]

Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 24, No. 4,pp. 495–511, November 2009

ISSN 0269-7459 print/1360-0583 online/09/040495–17 � 2009 Taylor & Francis 495DOI: 10.1080/02697450903327204

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

of mechanisms to ease heavy traffic, such as one-way streets, speed limits, speedbumps, and traffic signs (Al-Homoud & Al-Oun, 2003). In Jordan, children areallowed to use the streets at a wide level. The very young, however, do not feel asthreatened by traffic (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Al-Homoud & Al-Oun, 2003).Activities vary with child age and gender, house location, neighborhood type,setting (village or city), family structure, home range, playing spaces, and streetorganization (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999).Official figures of the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 indicate that the annual

number of traffic accidents in Jordan is one of the highest in the world. Statisticsshow that five children die every week in road accidents and that one trafficaccident takes place every 7.5 minutes. Moreover, while advanced nations loseone citizen in road accidents for every 10, 000 vehicles, Jordan loses 16 citizensannually for a similar number of vehicles (National Traffic Safety Department,2007). The Greater Amman Municipality latest traffic study (in 2007) identified 22black spots that required the building of tunnels or bridges to solve traffic/pedestrian conflicts. A total of 94, 257 traffic accidents were reported in 2007, with789 people killed and 12, 989 others injured. These accidents cost the countryaround JD255 million. Meanwhile, there were 900 deaths and 18, 000 injuriesrelated to traffic in 2006. Traffic accidents of 2006 cost the state over JD260million. Further, with an approximate ratio of one vehicle for every 7.7 citizens,there were 83, 129 accidents, which resulted in 790 deaths and 17, 579 injuries in2005. Earlier statistics by Jordan’s National Traffic Safety Department (2000)indicated that 149 children under the age of 18 were killed and 4, 096 injured intraffic accidents in 1999. Most injuries and deaths were recorded among childrenaged 5 – 7 years, who are the most frequent street players. At least 38 childrenfrom this age group were killed and 1, 235 injured in 1999 (National Traffic SafetyDepartment, 2000).Jordan’s public schools are generally located on traffic spines that jeopardize

children’s safety, with the most dangerous ones being Northeast Badia schools.Students walk to school instead of riding because school buses are not available;most parents in the Northeast Badia have no cars due to low income, as Al-Oun(1997) indicated. Schools are located in dispersed areas away from residentialdensities, which forces most children to walk for more than 5 minutes. Some ofthese schools are located on dangerous traffic arteries such as the InternationalHighway linking Mafraq to Baghdad (see Figure 1). These dangerous trafficarteries lack child safety mechanisms. Other schools are located on the oppositeside of the street from residential areas, which makes students subject to trafficdangers—especially for those schools located close to main arteries.Sources of child danger include high-speed traffic, through-traffic of oil tankers,

and lack of speed control, traffic lights, signs, and/or policeman presence. Further,most of Northeast Badia schools are not fenced and food service is located on theopposite side of the street.

School Location and the Planning System and Procedures in Jordan

Planning practices in Jordan are top-down; first from central to local government,and second, from local government to citizens. Planning governance in Jordan is

Majd Al-Homoud & Salem Al-Oun

496

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

characterized by multiple competing structures and power at the higher levels ofgovernment and local municipalities. As a result, land use plans have littleinteraction with local people’s needs.Planning regulation and policy documents allocate sites for different uses in

Jordan. Spatial planning procedures include two phases: producing land use mapsand location decisions provided by the central government according tointernational standards, and implementation of land use maps by the localmunicipalities. Usually governmental land is allocated for public services anduses: hospitals and health centers, schools, play yards and parks, mosques, courtsand other public institutions. However, land use maps are mostly ignored at theimplementation phase in rural settlements.School location in Badia settlements remains out of the control of local and

governmental planning authorities. Because governmental land is not available inmost cases, the Ministry of Education does not follow the land use map. Inaddition, there are no planning procedures regarding schools’ location enforcedby the Ministry of Education itself. Therefore, school location in the Badia isoften chosen to satisfy the shifting and dispersed Badia populations. TheMinistry locates schools where land is made available by local donors or ataffordable prices as limited budgets are allocated for school constructions.Although planning procedures are required by the Ministry of Educationregarding school form, such procedures are not enforced by the BuildingConstruction Department at the Ministry of Education in the Badia, since theyare considered low priority for such low-density areas that are perceived lessendangered.The Ministry of Education may be capable of buying land in safe locations

because it assigns a budget of JD60, 000 for construction costs, but the Ministrydoes not favor paying for land (Ministry of Education, 2004). Controversially,constructing a school in the Badia villages requires local residents to donate landregardless of location suitability for child safety as all land is owned by the localtribes. Accordingly, schools are built on the peripheries where donated land is thecheapest and where land use is less connected. Some of these locations areexposed to high traffic volumes and lack walkways (see Figure 2). This kind ofunplanned school location caused different car accidents that killed students invillages such as Sabha, Ar-Rawdah, and Zumrat Al-Ameer Ghazi (field interviews,2002).

FIGURE 1. Examples of schools from the Northeast Badia. Source: Authors’ data, 2002.

Badia School Location and Perception of Child Safety

497

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Goals of the Study

The study identifies perceptions of child safety problems and measures taken. Themain objective is to define some of the problems that face the Badia schools interms of students’ safety from traffic, as well as to identify the most importantattributes that affect child safety according to the perceptions of a range ofstakeholders. The significance of this research stems from directing planningprocedures by the Ministry of Education and local municipalities of the NortheastBadia villages of Jordan towards school location selection in terms of child safety,and from highlighting the problem to Traffic Safety Department officials so theycan provide additional safety measures.

Research Setting

Jordan is divided into four main regions distinguished according to topographyand climate: the highlands, the Jordan Valley, the Gulf of Aqaba, and the arid andsemi-arid land of the Badia. The Badia is the largest part of Jordan, extending fromnorth to south and covering an area of 726, 000 km2 (i.e. 81.3% of the total area ofJordan). It is subdivided into three sectors: the Northern Badia, the Central Badia,and the Southern Badia (see Figure 3). The Northeast Badia, the focus of thisstudy, is part of the arid North Badia in Mafraq governorate, extends north to theSyrian border and eastwards to the Iraqi border, and comprises 25, 930 km2 (Al-Oun, 1997). Mafraq governorate has a birth rate of 2.26%, and the Northeast Badiapopulation stands at 263, 200 (2006 statistics), making up about 4.7% of Jordan’stotal population. The research setting included the 50 villages of the BadiaResearch Development Center1 area in the Northeast Badia (see Figure 3). Thesevillages are located at different distances from Mafraq, the main regional city.People in these villages are Bedouins, most of whom depend on inheritedlivestock for livelihood (Al-Oun, 1997). The Northeast Badia has a total of 151schools and 20, 611 students (2004 statistics). The density of homes ranges from 4

FIGURE 2. Students walking on major dangerous arteries of Badi. Source: Authors’ data, 2002.


498

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

to 395 per village based on statistics from the Demographic and Socio-EconomicSurvey of the Badia Research Development Center (Al-Homoud et al., 2003).

Badia Land Tenure and Opportunities of Development in the Socio-politicalContext

The Badia land is, in many Bedouins’ minds, a property of the tribe that hasinhabited the Badia, and nobody other than the tribe has the right to use, cultivate,or own it. It is not easy to force these tribes to abandon their claim or to seize itfrom them by force. Historical evidence has shown that disputes betweengovernment and tribes never erupted; however, disputes among tribes over landwere very common.2 Because of the government lean policy towards Bedouintribes, land was given away to the Bedouins regardless of the consequences. Forpersonal advantages, some government officials were eager to acknowledge tribalclaims over land and pursued this policy over the past 30 years. Other factors have

FIGURE 3. Map of Jordan showing the different Badiyah zones. Source: Al-Oun (1997).


499

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

contributed to this problem, such as the fact that most government cabinets weredriven by political and social forces and tried to avoid conflict with Bedouins.Most of the time, land was given as a reward for some tribal key figures.Government policy has been motivated by a false conception that giving awayland might encourage Bedouins to settle. It is true that many tribes choose to settle,but the proportion of rangelands that was given away for settlement was far abovethe real need. Settlement became a tool to gain the right to own land by law, andthen it was sold to non-Bedouins or non-settlers. This explains the unequal landdistribution of the different villages all over the Badia, which adds a heavy burdento infrastructure and public services. Despite the contradictions between land lawsand legislations on the one hand, and the unsuitable management of land on theother, the land tenure issue in the Badia has not been examined or reviewed (Al-Oun, 1997). Law Number 20 (1973) was only designed to protect governmentrangelands by enforcing the policies of the Ministry of Agriculture and othergovernmental bodies, to prevent desertification and reduce rangeland area.Bedouins’ land ownership is a very complicated and constant issue, and remains afundamental factor of development (Al-Sirhan, 1999).

Street Layout and Children Safety

The relationship between children and their environment evolves, especially duringearly childhood (Gaster, 1991). Streets form the foundation and framework uponwhich cities are shaped and communities and neighborhood are formed (Calthorpe& Poticha, 1993). One of the main factors that affect safety is increased traffic. Asa consequence, parental restrictions have increased over the years, and children’saccess to streets has been declining substantially (Gaster, 1991). Residential streetsused to be a social milieu for children and provided them with an introduction to aworld beyond their family (Newman, 1972). However, parents restrict children’sactivities in the street because of constant fear about their safety (Appleyard, 1981;Appleyard & Lintell, 1972). Therefore, home range became limited by lack of safetycaused by traffic accidents (Rapoport, 1986). One necessary element of children’ssafety is natural surveillance; with more surveillance, streets will be visually safe(Newman, 1972). Usually, children under the age of 8 are more surveilled andrestricted by parents than their elder siblings (Gaster, 1991).It is important to meet the needs of children as much as those of traffic

(Bourgois, 1998; Kulynch, 2001). In a study by Appleyard and Lintell (1972),traffic volume was found to affect child danger. Additionally, speed limits andthrough-traffic affect the sense of street safety. The major mechanisms ofachieving road safety have been driver’s awareness about improving road andhighway quality. Streets may be shaped to slow traffic by creating hierarchy indensity and speed. Shaping residential streets to slow traffic can be done throughminimizing street width, maximizing street length, controlling traffic direction,decreasing number of traffic lanes, using topography, street surface texture, speedbumps, roadbed, and traffic signs, narrow street entrances, street furniture, andaccess to individual houses on both sides of the street (Appleyard & Lintell, 1972;Newman, 1972; Brower & Williamson, 1974; Appleyard, 1981; Taylor et al.,1984; Gaster, 1991).


500

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

In the study by Appleyard and Lintell (1972), families with children were forcedto move out from streets where traffic volumes increased. Meanwhile, childrenwho lived in light traffic streets considered their front yards, steps, parked cars,trees, and even manhole covers as part of their play settings. One-way streets,speed limits, and through-traffic affected residents’ sense of safety. For example,residents blocked through-traffic by devices such as rough paved surfaces, narrowstreet entrances, and street furniture (Appleyard & Lintell, 1972).Street safety appears to be universally shared. Meanwhile, various cultural

groups landscape their residential streets differently as part of their home territory;these streets are classified at different times by different cultures as primary orsecondary, therefore allowing their children to play differently in streets(Rapoport, 1969, 1986; Borchert, 1979; Brown, 1987; Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999).The study by Al-Homoud and Al-Oun (2003) indicated that spatial layout and

socio-spatial aspects of residential streets in Jordan would increase parents’ senseof child safety. Influential design aspects on perception of child safety includecurved street, low traffic density, use of safety design means such as barricadesand street bumps, and presence of transitional spaces. Although street curvaturemay help slow traffic speeds, it has drawbacks such as reduced visibility fordrivers. They may be thus more susceptible to striking young pedestrians dartinginto the street from the sidewalk areas. Another study indicated that children areallowed to play in their residential streets (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999). Generally, lack ofyards force parents to let their children play in the street, especially if the interiorspace of the house is limited compared with the number of children in the family(Al-Homoud & Al-Oun, 2003).

Schools’ Location and Proximity to Home

Children use daily distance to school to explore and understand their environment.If child functional distance becomes larger, children get exposed to danger becauseof lack of natural surveillance (Thurber & Malinowski, 1999).Schools have a profound impact on the economic and physical character of a

setting (Chung, 2002). For example, due to land cost and scarcity, many schoolsare erected on the periphery of the built community in order to satisfy spatialrequirements to accommodate schools’ diverse athletic activities and facilities,parking, buffer zones and security features (Beaumont & Pianca, 2002; Passmore,2002). Such schools are usually built on edges with less dense and less connectedland use patterns and poor street connectivity, leading to lack of child walkways,which become unsafe because of high traffic volumes (Beaumont & Pianca, 2002;Passmore, 2002; McMillan, 2005). School location and proximity to busy roadshas been associated with adverse negative outcomes and traffic-related problems(Green et al., 2004). Periphery locations reduce mobility and choices for children,whilst providing safe routes to school by decreasing options of walking or biking(Beaumont & Pianca, 2002; Gurwitt, 2004). As suggested by Salvesen and Hervey(2003), schools distant from home minimize walking and bicycling, contrary toschools that are centralized within established residential settings. Street networkis a key indicator of the workability of local environments, especially whether off-street paths are available or not (Calthorpe & Poticha, 1993). Straight streets, block


501

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

lengths and street connectivity are indicators that identify and quantify streetnetwork based on neighborhood scale (Calthorpe & Poticha, 1993). In addition,urban form, land use, street width, absence/presence of greenery and trees impactchildren’s travel mode to schools (Handy et al., 2002; Pikora et al., 2002; Lee &Moudon, 2004; Timperio et al., 2004).Some studies indicated that exposure to traffic is related to ethnic and socio-

economic indicators of those who are economically disadvantaged (Green et al.,2004; Gunier et al., 2003).How can Bedouin parents of Northeast Jordan maintain a balance between their

children’s need to go to school, which is critical enough due to the rough socio-economic circumstances that cause children to leave school at an early age, andtheir sense of security about their children’s safety? Experience of safety dangervaries with school location, proximity to dangerous streets, village location, homerange, street organization, child awareness, child age, gender, and other factors.The present study will guide us on how to enhance school children’s safety in theNortheast Badia villages. Further, the study is intended to lead to the formation ofrecommendations about improving settings for school children’s safety in streetsin Jordan in general. It is hoped that this will be useful for planners and designersin order to come up with better settings for children in the future. To the best ofour knowledge, no similar study has been conducted in Jordan.

Research Questions

On the basis of the previous review and background, the following questions are tobe tested:

1. The general research question: do physical attributes like village location,school location on the opposite side of the street from residential setting,school fencing, school gate, and availability of food services at school, as wellas students’ behavior in relation to traffic and students’ awareness, interacttogether to affect perceived child safety? The probability is that schoollocation on dangerous streets from the opposite side of the residential settingis the most perceived factor of child danger.

2. Do safety measures taken by the family, school, Ministry of Education, andTraffic Department interact together to affect perceived child safety all atonce?

3. Do safety measures taken by the family, school, Ministry of Education, andTraffic Department affect perceived child safety differently?

4. Are there any additional proposed solutions in relation to safety measurestaken by the school, Ministry of Education, and Traffic Department that mayaffect perceived child safety?

Research Methods

The Northeast Badia District was the target area of the study. Data collection tookplace in 2001–2002 in 50 villages of that area of Jordan. A cross-sectional timeframe took place. A multi-method approach, consisting of surveys, field


502

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

observations, and interviews was used: surveys elicited data about the relation ofperceived physical and attitudinal attributes and safety measures to perceived childsafety, using closed and open-ended questions; field observations collected dataabout physical attributes available and their spatial location; and field interviewsincluded subjects from each village, like school directors, municipality heads,victim’s (if any) classmates, victim’s (if any) parents, and parents’ councilsmembers, in addition to the directors of Northern Badia Directorate of Education,Mafraq Traffic Department, and Mafraq Governorate.The target population was teachers at all schools of the Northeast Badia of

Jordan. The unit of analysis was the teacher. A random sampling technique wasused to select 263 teachers from 72 schools in 50 villages. A face-to-facestructured questionnaire, administered by five trained interviewers, was used toelicit data. The survey measured teachers’ perceptions of child safety, as well assafety measures taken by different stakeholders. Variables and study measureswere defined after a pilot study and field observations were undertaken.As the dependent variable, the major variable of the study—perceived child

safety—was measured using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree).Independent variables comprised the following:

1. Physical attributes, including village location, school location on the oppositeside of the street from residential setting, availability of school fencing,availability of school gate, and availability of food services at the school,students’ behavior in relation to traffic, and students’ awareness of perceivedsafety, were measured using the same Likert scale mentioned above.

2. Perceived safety measures taken by the family, school, Ministry of Education,and Traffic Department were measured using a hypothetical average to weigha set of statements of each of the four variables. A Likert scale was used to getresponses of safety perception from subjects, ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Family safety measures included: bringingchildren to school; seeking help from school regarding traffic problems;getting traffic safety awareness; and cooperating with parents’ council at thelocal school to raise traffic awareness by their children. School safetymeasures included: providing teacher observation of students during breaks;cooperating with families to provide traffic awareness to children; cooperatingwith the Traffic Department to increase traffic safety awareness throughlectures; providing traffic safety awareness activities at school through theteaching staff; reaching families about students’ traffic safety; cooperatingwith families to preserve children’s safety; and providing students withlectures on how to deal with the car and the street. Safety measures taken bythe Ministry of Education included provision of school traffic safetyawareness. Safety measures taken by the Traffic Department includedproviding traffic awareness to students, teachers, and families. Again here, aLikert scale was used to evaluate responses.

3. Proposed school safety measures included monitoring students’ arrival anddeparture by teachers. Proposed Ministry of Education measures includedprovision of school buses and constraints of a comprehensive school for each


503

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

set of villages. Proposed traffic safety measures included controlling trafficand executing penalties. A Likert scale was also used to obtain responses,ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Analysis and Discussion

To identify the most important attributes and safety measures (used by the differentstakeholders) that affected child’s safety, multinomial logit model analysis wasundertaken for the interaction of physical attributes, students’ behaviors, andstudents’ awareness with perceived child safety; the interaction of safety measures(taken by the family, school, Ministry of Education, and Traffic Department) withchild perceived safety; and the interaction of a set of proposed solutions withperceived child safety. A test of difference of the means was applied to safetymeasures taken by the family, school, Ministry of Education, and Traffic Departmentagainst the perceived child safety. For all statistical tests, the level a¼ 0.05 wasconsidered significant. About half of the sample were females (see Table 1).

Negative Impacts on Students

About two-thirds of the sample (67%) perceived that students were endangered bytraffic (see Figure 4). Location of school on the opposite side of the residentialstreet, lack of fences, and lack of food services within the school were perceivedby most as sources of unsafe student environment. About two-thirds of the sample

TABLE 1. General sample characteristics

Characteristic Percentage

GenderFemale 51.7Male 48.3

Age21–29 years 76.430–39 years 23.240 years and older 0.4

EducationHigh school 0.4College 21.3Bachelor degree 76.0Graduate degree 2.7

Marital statusSingle 48.7Married 51.3

Years in service1–9 91.610–19 7.620 or more 0.8

Source: Authors’ data, 2007.


504

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

agreed that car accidents affected students’ performance at school as they wereunder daily threat and risk.About one-half of the subjects (53%) agreed that car accidents negatively

affected students’ school attendance (see Figure 5). Almost all of the interviewedteachers (94%) agreed that students’ behavior in dealing with traffic increased their

FIGURE 4. Negative impact of accidents on students’ performance. Source: Authors’ data, 2007.

FIGURE 5. Negative impact of accidents on students’ attendance. Source: Authors’ data, 2007.


505

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

risk. They saw that older students’ negative behaviors badly affected young ones,as indicated by 80% of them.

Physical and Behavioral Attributes Affect Perceived Child Safety

The tests indicated that an interactive relationship was significant (see Table 2),suggesting that school location on dangerous streets on the opposite side of theresidential setting was the most perceived factor of child danger. These schoolswere located on donated land that was poorly connected to safe walkways,resulting in unsafe walking to school, which supports Beaumont and Pianca(2002), Passmore (2002), and McMillan (2005).Attributes that significantly contributed to the regression model, in the order of

their strong effect were: (1) school location on the opposite side of the street fromresidential setting; (2) negative student behavior; (3) lack of student awareness; (4)lack of school fence; (5) lack of food services at the school; and (6) an unsafeschool entrance. However, village location was not seen as significant.School location on the opposite site of places of residence was perceived by

two-thirds of the sample as a major treat to students’ perceived safety. Negativebehavior included, as indicated by almost all the sample, running back and forthacross the street without checking for traffic, walking very close to the street, andplaying right by the street. Further, students’ danger awareness was low, and one-half of the interviewed teachers believed that this issue impacted students’ safety.Lack of fences allowed students to break free and play very close to the street,which exposed them to risks. Further, lack of food services at the school madestudents cross the street during breaks to buy food and drinks, since most shopswere located on the other side. Unsafe entrances, especially when schools werelocated on main streets, increased students’ risks and perception of lack of safety,which supports the study by Al-Homoud and Al-Oun (2003) on residential streets.

Safety Measures Affect Perceived Child Safety

In relation to factors that affected perceived child safety, physical attributes as wellas student awareness and behavior were more important than safety measures—supporting suggestions by Appleyard (1981), Brower and Williamson (1974),Gaster (1991), and Taylor et al. (1984).The factor that most significantly contributed to this marginal significance of the

model was Traffic Department safety measures. School safety measures werereported with a less marginal significance, and Ministry of Education and family

TABLE 2. Model fitting of attributes with perceived child safety

Model 72 log likelihood Chi-square Degrees of freedom Significance

Intercept only 748.39Final 258.99 489.40 360 0.00



506

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

safety measures were reported as non-significant. The hypothetical average ratingsof Traffic Department safety measures were the highest among the otherstakeholders’ safety measures. Traffic Department safety measures includederecting traffic signs and street pumps, assigning traffic policemen near schools,and issuing fines and penalties to those that may threaten students’ life byexceeding speed limits or not conforming to safety measures.

Safety Measures Differences against Perceived Child Safety Measures

An analysis of variance was conducted in order to study differences among theaverages of family, school, Ministry of Education, and Traffic Department safetymeasures in relation to perceived child safety. The results indicated that familysafety measures were non-significant, suggesting that their measures (bringingchildren to school, seeking help from school for traffic problems, getting trafficsafety awareness, cooperating with parents councils at the local school to providetraffic awareness to children) did not impact perceived child safety in isolationfrom other attributes, which is contrary to Appleyard (1981) and Appleyard andLintell (1972). Whether taken or not, these measures made no difference onperceived children’s safety. However, results indicated that school safety measureslike securing teacher observation of students during breaks, cooperating withfamilies to provide traffic awareness to children, cooperating with TrafficDepartment to increase traffic safety awareness through lectures, and undertakingtraffic safety awareness activities at school through teachers were significant. Onthe other hand, reaching to families about students’ perceived safety, cooperatingwith families to preserve children’s safety, and providing students with lectures onhow to deal with cars on the street were not significant.Further, safety measures taken by Traffic Department to provide students,

teachers, and families with safety awareness were marginally significant. Measurestaken by the Ministry of Education to provide school traffic safety awareness werenot significant, perhaps simply because they were not available.

Proposed Solutions against Perceived Child Safety Model Testing

The tests indicated that, in relation to the most important proposed attributes ofsafety measures that affect perceived child safety, additional safety measures otherthan those already used were needed (see Table 3).Proposed solutions that contributed to the model in the order of their strong

effect were: (1) those that could be made by Ministry of Education, includingallocating school buses and establishing one comprehensive school for each set of

TABLE 3. Model fitting of proposed solutions with perceived child safety

Model 72 log likelihood Chi-square Degrees of freedom Significance

Intercept only 374.50Final 248.20 126.31 84 0.002



507

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

villages; and (2) those that may be made by school, including monitoring students’arrival and departure. Solutions that may be made by the Traffic Department werenot significant.School buses were not available at that time and providing them may reduce the

risk of exposing children to traffic. Schools were dispersed, low in quality, small insize, disqualified for location, and under-staffed. Establishing one comprehensiveschool for a set of adjacent villages may be a solution that works to minimizedraining resources and maximizing quality and feasibility. In addition, monitoringstudents’ arrival and departure was seen as enhancing their chances of safety.

Conclusions

It is important to meet children’s need as much as those of traffic, and this findingsupports those by Abu-Ghazzeh (1999), Bourgois (1998) and Kulynch (2001).Experience of child danger varies with setting type; that is, village or city (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999). Proximity to busy roads has been associated with adversenegative outcomes, including exposure to traffic-related problems (Green et al.,2004). Various cultural groups landscape their residential streets differently as partof their home territory; these streets are classified at different times by differentcultures as primary or secondary (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Borchert, 1979; Brown,1987; Rapoport, 1969, 1986).Spatial layout and socio-spatial aspects of residential streets would increase

parents’ sense of child safety. Shaping residential streets to slow traffic can bedone through minimizing street width, maximizing street length, controlling trafficdirection, decreasing number of traffic lanes, using topography, street surfacetexture, speed bumps and roadbed, traffic signals, and accessing individual housesfrom both sides of the street (Appleyard & Lintell, 1972; Newman, 1972; Brower& Williamson, 1974; Appleyard, 1981; Gaster, 1991; Taylor et al., 1984). One ofthe requirements of child safety on streets is natural surveillance; with moresurveillance, streets will be visually safe (Thurber & Malinowski, 1999).Land cost and scarcity may cause schools to be built on the peripheries in order

to meet demands of large areas for school diverse athletic activities and facilities,parking, buffer zones and security features (Beaumont & Pianca, 2002; Passmore,2002). Such conditions may give poor street connectivity and reduce choices forchildren to have safe routes to school (Beaumont & Pianca, 2002; Gurwitt, 2004).This first study of its kind on residential streets in Jordan suggests that schools

sites are chosen in areas where children are unsafe. Most Badia schools are locatedon disperse distances from residential communities and require most children towalk for more than 5 minutes. Most schools are not fenced and are located onmain and dangerous arteries. Parents in this case are characterized by a greatertolerance, reflected in their willingness to let their children go to school throughpotentially unsafe streets. The study suggests that perceived child safety is stronglyaffected by school location on the opposite side of the street from a residentialsetting, indicating that schools in the Northeast Badia of Jordan should be licensedfor location by traffic safety, but they were not required to be until then. Further,negative students’ behavior and lack of students’ awareness affect perceived childsafety, indicating the need to increase traffic safety awareness through lectures and


508

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

school activities. Finally, lack of food services, lack of school fencing and unsafeschool entrance affect perceived child safety, suggesting the need to enhance thequality of school design.

Recommendations and Implications

Results indicate that the role of planning in shaping a safe environment forchildren is limited. Therefore, it is recommended that land use maps consider localneeds and suitability of available land for safe school locations. Local authoritiesshould supervise school locations and not leave it to the Ministry of Education,who does not allocate money for land in its budget and chooses cheap locationsdonated by the local people regardless of safety.Understanding the impact of physical attributes would help planners and

designers in Jordan to take decisive actions that can secure child safety on schoolstreets. Moreover, the findings reveal significant effects of physical attributes onperception of child safety. Accordingly, the present paper proposes planningschool locations on the same side as residential settlements or villages are built,and providing school fencing, food services within the school yard or building,and safe school entry. In addition, attention should be given to students’awareness of their safety and towards promoting their positive behaviors towardstraffic.Safety measures, although not seen very important by the subjects in the present

study, should be rather emphasized by Traffic Safety Department. They includeerecting traffic signs, street pumps and barricades, assigning traffic policemen nearschools, and issuing fines and penalties to motorists who may threaten students’life. The present study has indicated that safety measures taken by the family donot impact perceived child safety in isolation from other attributes, which iscontrary to what Appleyard (1981) and Appleyard and Lintell (1972) found outabout parental safety actions. Further, measures like teacher observation ofstudents during breaks, collaborating with families to provide children with trafficawareness, cooperating with the Traffic Safety Department to increase trafficsafety awareness through lectures, and undertaking traffic safety awarenessactivities at school through the teaching staff are important. Most observedsolutions suggested by teachers include a need for student and parental guidance.Some proposed solutions may be made by Ministry of Education, including

providing school buses and establishing one comprehensive school for each set ofvillages, and by the school including monitoring students’ arrival and departure.As indicated earlier there is no point in keeping schools that are dispersed with noschool buses, when reducing children’s exposure to traffic is a priority. Thesefindings could be generalized to the population of Jordan Badia.

Acknowledgements

The Jordan University of Science and Technology provided the funds over thecourse of this research through the Deanship of Scientific Research. Dr Salem Al-Oun, being a native and resident of the Northeast Badia, Head of the TechnicalDivision until 2004, and co-researcher, was of great help in this study’s conception


509

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and implementation. His past research expertise in the Badia area greatlyfacilitated the fieldwork.

Notes1. The Jordan Badia Research and Development Center was launched as a joint 3-year program between the

Royal Geographical Society, The Higher Council for Science and Technology in Jordan and The Centre forOverseas Research and Development, University of Durham. The main aim of the program has been researchand development in the northern region of the Jordan Badia. The Badia Research and Development Centerbecame a national center—Badia Research Development Center—in 2005.

2. Researcher’s field interviews with key individuals in the Northern Badia, 2002.

References

Abu-Ghazzeh, T. (1999) Children’s use of the street as a playground in Abu-Nuseir, Jordan, Environment andBehavior, 30(6), pp. 799–831.

Al-Homoud, M. & Al-Oun, S. (2003) Perception of child safety and parent’s behavior in the streets of single-family homes, International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, 27, pp. 119–138.

Al-Homoud, M., Al-Oun, S. & Abed, A. (2003) Reflective lifestyle on Badu homes in Jordan, in: Proceedings ofthe 34th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, pp. 41–55. Oklahoma.

Al-Oun, S. (1997) Livestock marketing in the Jordanian Badia, PhD thesis, Durham University, UK.Al-Sirhan, S. M. (1999) Managing rangelands: Learning from institutional experience in order to promote

Bedouin participation in the Badia of Jordan, Applied Geography, 19, pp. 387–400.Appleyard, D. (1981) Livable Streets (Berkeley: University of California Press).Appleyard, D. & Lintell, M. (1972) The environmental quality of city streets: The residents’ viewpoint, Journal of

the American Institute of Planners, 38(2), pp. 84–101.Beaumont, C. E. & Pianca, E. G. (2002) Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School: Historic Neighborhood Schools in

the Age of Sprawl (Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation).Borchert, J. (1979) Alley landscapes of Washington, Landscape, 23(3), pp. 3–11.Bourgois, P. (1998) Families and children in pain in the US inner city, in: N. Scheper-Hughes and C. Sargent

(Eds) Small Wars: The Cultural Politics of Childhood, pp. 331–351 (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress).

Brower, S. & Williamson, P. (1974) Outdoor recreation as a function of the urban housing environment,Environment and Behavior, 6(3), pp. 295–346.

Brown, B. (1987) Territoriality, in: D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds) Handbook of Environmental Psychology,pp. 505–531 (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

Calthorpe, P. & Poticha, S. (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Communities, and the AmericanDream (New York: Princeton Architectural Press).

Chung, C. (2002) Using Public Schools as Community-Development Tools: Strategies for Community-BasedDevelopers (Cambridge, MA: Joint Center on Housing Studies of Harvard University and NeighborhoodReinvestment Corporation).

Gaster, S. (1991) Urban children’s access to their neighborhood: Changes over three generations, Environmentand Behavior, 23(1), pp. 70–85.

Green, R., Smorodinsky, S., Kim, J., McLaughlin, R. & Ostro, B. (2004). Proximity of california public schoolsto busy roads, Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(1), pp. 61–66.

Gunier, R., Hertz, A., Von Behren, J. & Reynolds, P. (2003). Traffic density in California: Socioeconomic andethnic differences among potentially exposed children, Journal of Exposure Analysis and EnvironmentalEpidemiology, 13(3), pp. 240–246.

Gurwitt, B. (2004) Edge-ucation: What compels communities to build schools in the middle of nowhere?,Governing, 17(6), pp. 22–26.

Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R. & Killingsworth, R. E. (2002) How the built environment affectsphysical activity—views from urban planning, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2), pp. 64–73.

Kulynch, J. (2001) No playing in public sphere: Democratic theory and the exclusion of children, Social Theoryand Practice, 27(2), pp. 231–264.


510

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lee, C. & Moudon, A. (2004). Physical activity and environment research in the health field: Implications forurban and transportation planning practice and research, Journal of Planning Literature, 19(2), pp. 147–181.

McMillan, T. (2005) Urban form and a children’s trip to school: The current literature and a framework for futureresearch, Journal of Planning Literature, 19(4), pp. 440–456.

Ministry of Education (2004) Archival records. Ministry Library, Amman, Jordan.National Traffic Safety Department (2000) Statistics of 2000. Unpublished report, National Traffic Safety

Department, Amman, Jordan.National Traffic Safety Department (2007) Statistics of 2007. Unpublished report, National Traffic Safety

Department, Amman, Jordan.Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space (New York: The Macmillan Company).Passmore, S. (2002) Translation Paper Number Eight: Education and Smart Growth: Reversing School Sprawl

for Better Schools and Communities (Miami, FL: Funder’s Network for Smart Growth and LivableCommunities).

Pikora, T. J., Bull, F. C. L., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B. & Donovan, R. J. (2002) Developing areliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity, American Journal ofPreventive Medicine, 23(3), pp. 187–194.

Rapoport, A. (1969) House Form and Culture (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).Rapoport, A. (1986) The use and design of open spaces in urban neighborhoods, in: D. Frick (Ed.) The Quality of

Urban Life, pp. 159–175 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.).Salvesen, D. & Hervey, P. (2003). Good Schools—Good Neighborhoods (Chapel Hill, NC: Center of Regional

Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).Taylor, R., Gotterfedson S. & Brower, S. (1984) Block crime and fear: Defensible space, local social ties, and

territorial functioning, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21(4), pp. 303–331.Thurber, C. & Malinowski, J. (1999) Environmental correlates of negative emotion in children, Environment and

Behavior, 31(4), pp. 487–513.Timperio, A., Crawford, D., Telford, A. & Salmon, J. (2004) Perceptions about the local neighborhood and

walking and cycling among children, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 38(1), pp. 39–47.


511

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 14:

51 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

jordan's badia school location effects on the perception of child safety

Documents