Children’s Emotions in Policy and Practice 2015
DOI: 10.1057/9781137415608_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Planning for Resilience: Urban Nature and the Emotional Geographies of Children’s Political Engagement

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the most longstanding concerns has been with the evidential bases for claims made about the efficacy of “connecting” children with nature (Faber Taylor & Kuo, ). Relatedly, geographers have critiqued the overly emotional nature of debates about childhoods–natures, the privileging of “local” forms of connection, which efface more outward‐looking ethics of place (Joassart‐Marcelli & Bosco, ), and underlying (normative) assumptions about bodily size, food technology and play (e.g., Punch et al., ). Simultaneously, geographers have been at the forefront of attempts to unpick normative discourses of childhoods–natures – whether through critiques of rural or wilderness imaginaries associated with children (Jones, ), of the biopoliticisation of children's “natures” through the psy‐disciplines (Kraftl, ), or through new‐materialist scholarship that has, increasingly, sought to witness the multiple, dynamic ways in which childhoods and non‐human natures are co‐constituted, co‐mingling, intra‐active (Kraftl, ; Taylor et al., ).…”
Section: (Re)thinking (Re)connection: Childhoods–natures and Nexus Thmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the most longstanding concerns has been with the evidential bases for claims made about the efficacy of “connecting” children with nature (Faber Taylor & Kuo, ). Relatedly, geographers have critiqued the overly emotional nature of debates about childhoods–natures, the privileging of “local” forms of connection, which efface more outward‐looking ethics of place (Joassart‐Marcelli & Bosco, ), and underlying (normative) assumptions about bodily size, food technology and play (e.g., Punch et al., ). Simultaneously, geographers have been at the forefront of attempts to unpick normative discourses of childhoods–natures – whether through critiques of rural or wilderness imaginaries associated with children (Jones, ), of the biopoliticisation of children's “natures” through the psy‐disciplines (Kraftl, ), or through new‐materialist scholarship that has, increasingly, sought to witness the multiple, dynamic ways in which childhoods and non‐human natures are co‐constituted, co‐mingling, intra‐active (Kraftl, ; Taylor et al., ).…”
Section: (Re)thinking (Re)connection: Childhoods–natures and Nexus Thmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…. ), being relational, externally produced, and transformative’ (Joassart-Marcelli and Bosco, 2015: 92). To sum up, emotions and feelings are an important dimension of learning, as they influence this process by facilitating, blocking or structuring knowledge, even if words are often inadequate to describe them (Moon, 2013).…”
Section: Emotions Children and Disastersmentioning
confidence: 99%