Article

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

2020, Vol. 14(3) 358–378
A Mixed Methods Research Ó The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Strategy to Study Children’s sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1558689819871820
Play and Urban Physical journals.sagepub.com/home/mmr

Environments in Dhaka

Md Rashed Bhuyan1 and Ye Zhang1

Abstract
Mixed methods research (MMR) is useful for addressing complex and multidisciplinary urban
problems. This article demonstrates an integrated MMR approach with a novel two-phase
exploratory sequential design while studying play, play space, and children’s (age 7-15 years)
location preference for play in three residential areas in Dhaka. We used directly administered
survey and interviews in the first phase to describe play and play space from children’s perspec-
tive. Informed by the first, we employed GIS-based spatial and statistical analysis in the second
phase to study patterns of children’s location preference for play. Our article contributes to the
methodological literature by combining MMR with urban spatial analysis in children’s play envi-
ronment studies.

Keywords
mixed methods research, exploratory sequential design, children’s play, urban physical environ-
ments, Dhaka

New developments in mixed methods research (MMR) show enormous potential to address
complex problems that are context-sensitive and multidisciplinary in nature (Hesse-Biber &
Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2017). MMR incorporates more than one method to address research
questions comprehensively (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). One of the key challenges of MMR,
particularly in addressing multidisciplinary issues, is the integration of different data collection
and analysis methods at different phases of a research project (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017).
While MMR and its integration strategies have achieved momentum in many disciplines, they
received little attention in architectural and urban studies on children’s play environments,
where spatial mapping and context-sensitivity play important role.
At least two methodological issues demand attention in this regard. First, there are few
MMR precedents that explore the potentials of integrating social and spatial analytical methods
in children’s outdoor play and urban spatial configuration studies. Although application of
MMR approach is emerging in health psychology (Dures, Rumsey, Morris, & Gleeson, 2011),
behavioral sciences (Lopez-Fernandez & Molina-Azorin, 2011), and childhood play studies
1
National University of Singapore, Singapore

Corresponding Author:
Md Rashed Bhuyan, Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, Department of Architecture, National University of
Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, 117566 Singapore.
Email: A0086231@u.nus.edu
Bhuyan and Zhang 359

(Christina et al., 2018; Hume, Salmon, & Ball, 2005; Lynch & Banerjee, 1977; Walker et al.,
2009), integrated MMR strategies to understand children’s location preference for play with
reference to the configuration of urban physical environments are meagre. Within current
MMR scholarship, integration of social science methods with spatial analytical methods has
received little attention (Fielding & Cisneros-Puebla, 2009). With reference to an empirical
study on community garden in Buffalo, New York, Knigge and Cope (2006) used an interesting
combination of interpretation of census data, GIS (geographic information system) analysis,
and mapping, participant observation, field research, and text analysis to understand the com-
plex sociospatial issues related to community garden. Jung (2009) used a combination of image
data and their interpretive codes in digital GIS platform that allows researchers to work with
multiple forms of data and conduct different forms of analyses including grounded theory and
spatial analysis. However, to our knowledge there are no earlier studies that used MMR to com-
bine social and spatial analytical aspects of children’s urban play environments.
Second, few studies in social sciences and urban design focus both on social and spatial
dimensions of children’s outdoor play (Freeman & Tranter, 2011). For example, studies in chil-
dren’s geographies highlight children’s participation and social agencies for play, while they
ignore the role of locational distribution and physical configuration of play spaces (Holloway,
2014; Jensen, 2014; Ryan, 2011). Conversely, architectural and urban studies focus on the spa-
tial analytical aspects of play spaces and overlook the participation of children and their views
in the planning process (Hart, 2011; Qvortrup, 1994; Zako, 2009). Moreover, most spatial ana-
lytical studies in architecture consider only the formal characteristics of a particular play space
or a street segment (Mehta, 2007; we call these characteristics ‘‘micro-spatial qualities’’) and
ignore the accessibility conditions between children’s homes, streets, and play spaces (Hillier
& Vaughan, 2007; we call these accessibility conditions ‘‘meso-spatial qualities’’).
Children’s play in urban environments is an emerging research field (Howard, Miles, Rees-
Davies, & Bertenshaw, 2017). Children’s play has been described as an important indicator of
communal cohesion (Gill, 2007), urban resilience (Freeman & Tranter, 2011), and a source of
urban spatial aesthetics (Lefebvre, Stanek, & Bononno, 2014). Lack of adequate outdoor play
negatively affects children’s physical health and well-being (Bates & Stone, 2014; Sivam,
Karuppannan, Koohsari, & Sivam, 2012; Tremblay et al., 2015; Wen, Kite, & Merom, 2009).
Article 31.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) specifically
recognizes children’s right to play. Despite increased efforts from global organizations, scholars
argue that cities are not as good places for children’s play as they could be (Freeman, Tranter,
& Skelton, 2017; Rigolon & Flohr, 2014). Opportunities for children’s outdoor play are dimin-
ishing at an alarming rate in many cities (Freeman et al., 2017; Karsten, 2002; Shaw et al.,
2010).
Children’s play environments are different in the global north and global south urban con-
texts (Skelton & Gough, 2013). Appropriation of methods in local sociospatial context is impor-
tant for children’s play environment studies (Pellegrini, 2009). South Asian cities are home to
more than 163 million children aged younger than 18 years and many of them are characterized
with high density and high rate of urbanization (United Nations, 2014). Very few studies used
MMR to develop context-specific understanding of children’s outdoor play in South Asian
urban context (Ahmed, 2011; Islam, 2009). To our knowledge, no children’s play environment
studies in South Asia have applied MMR to relate children’s location preference and usage of
urban play spaces to the micro- and meso-spatial qualities of those play spaces. Understanding
such relationship is important to rethinking children’s play environments in cities through plan-
ning and design.
360 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

Objectives
In this study, we present an integrated MMR strategy while investigating play, play space, and
children’s location preference for play in Dhaka, a little-researched city in South Asia.
Reportedly, Dhaka is the densest city in the world with more than 15 million people living
within only 134 square miles (United Nations, 2014). The city is growing at an annual rate of
5.4% (Hossain, 2008). Currently, more than 2 million residents are children (younger than 18
years) living in this city. Empirical studies on children’s play environments are meager in
Dhaka. Lack of child-friendly outdoor playgrounds is considered as one of the major causes for
obesity among children (14%), juvenile crimes, and children’s health hazards in Dhaka
(International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, 2016). The need for proper spatial plan-
ning for children’s play is widely reported in the local media (Anam, 2015). However, prior to
any urban spatial intervention for play, it is important to understand the meaning of ‘‘play’’ and
‘‘play space’’ from children’s perspective; and how such understanding can inform urban plan-
ners to assess spatial qualities for play and create equitable and accessible play spaces across
city.
With reference to existing gaps in children–environment studies in the global south urban
context, this study addresses three relevant research questions using MMR: (1) What are the
constructions of children’s play and play spaces in Dhaka from children’s perspective? (2) How
can we measure the configuration of urban physical environments by taking children’s outdoor
play behavior into account? and (3) Does configuration of urban physical environments affect
children’s location preference for play; and if it does, what is the extent? This article argues that
integration of a range of qualitative and quantitative data and a combined use of both social and
spatial analysis show high potential in addressing multifaceted problems in children’s play and
urban configuration studies.

Research Approach and Design

The stated questions are interrelated and have both social and spatial components. They also
contain ambiguous issues, such as ‘‘play’’ and ‘‘play space’’ (Gray, 2013; Sutton-Smith, 1997).
In order to address these issues comprehensively, we identified an MMR approach with an
exploratory sequential design as the most suitable research strategy. An exploratory sequential
design in MMR typically involves collection and analysis of qualitative data followed by
designing a quantitative feature based on the qualitative findings, and finally testing the quanti-
tative feature (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Besides incorporating more than one method in a
single study, we explored full potential of MMR by integrating a range of dimensions including
philosophical, theoretical, data analysis, and data collection (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017).
Philosophically, we contend that researchers must consider subjective, intersubjective, and
objective aspects to understand the multiplicities of issues involved in play and play space stud-
ies. Going beyond objectivism and constructivism (Guba, 1990), we deny sharp distinction
between means and ends (Tilman & Knap, 1999) and appreciate the dialectical understanding
of urban space (Ellin, 2006; Lefebvre & Nicholson-Smith, 1991; Merrifield, 2002; Sargin &
Savas, 2012). Both children’s play and play space can be considered as means or ends at the
same time. For example, if a child plays, cities need to provide accessible play spaces. Here,
‘‘play’’ is a means and ‘‘play space’’ is an outcome. Conversely, if there is no play space, a
child will not be able to play in the city. Here, space is a means, and child’s play is an outcome.
Considering architectural and urban planning discourses on play and play space, dialectical
approach denies strict adherence to either modern or postmodern ideologies (Ellin, 1999) and
Bhuyan and Zhang 361

remains focused on both subjective and objective aspects of people–environment interactions in

real context.
We operationalize our dialectic understanding by drawing resources from recent develop-
ments in children’s geographies and urban morphology. Proponents of pluralism in children’s
geographies recognize that children differ from adults in the way they assign meaning to reality
(Matthews & Limb, 1999). They highlight qualitiative approaches to understand children’s per-
ceptions and preferences across age, gender, economic background, and so on (Holloway,
2014). However, comparative assessment of children’s play across locations and their pattern
across space–time are difficult to explain with pluralistic theories only. Comparative assessment
of children’s outdoor play environments requires inclusion of morphological theories and spatial
analytical methods. In urban morphology, space syntax focuses on the impact of spatial config-
uration on social phenomena (Batty, 2013; Hillier & Hanson, 1984). They highlight the impor-
tance of spatial qualities such as density and accessibility in the formation of society. An urban
play space, conceived as having both ‘‘social origins’’ and ‘‘social consequences’’ (Hillier &
Hanson, 1984), is a suitable ground for spatial analysis.
Our data collection and analysis strategy involved two phases (Figure 1).
The first phase (Phase I) included collection and analysis of subjective data to explore differ-
ential constructions of play and play space with reference to themes such as children’s percep-
tions and preferences of play and play spaces, degree of independent mobility, perceptions on
neighborhood environments, and so on. We analyzed these themes with reference to children’s
social profiles (such as, age, gender, locations, family income, and length of stay). We used par-
ticipatory methods such as directly administered survey and interviews with children and their
respective parents in three residential areas in Dhaka. The key reason for exploring subjective
issues in the first phase was that the definitions of ‘‘play’’ and ‘‘play space’’ and spatial adja-
cencies of children and outdoor play spaces was not clear in the studied context at the beginning
of the project. We applied the findings from Phase I to define strategies for Phase II that focused
on objective data. Specifically, the first phase informed us in (1) selecting play spaces for sys-
tematic observations, (2) defining context-specific spatial qualities of a play space, and (3)
developing measurable indicators (both spatial and social) for statistical analysis in the second
phase. In Phase II, using data collected through systematic observation supplemented with map
studies and user interviews, we defined, modeled, and measured the configuration of urban
physical environments of play using a combination of digital platforms such as AutoCAD,
ArcGIS, MapInfo, and so on. Configuration of urban physical environments of play was mod-
eled in terms of micro- and meso-spatial qualities—referring to morphological and accessibility
aspects of an urban play space, respectively (see Supplemental Appendices 1 and 2 available
online). We developed a robust set of micro- and meso-spatial quality indices and empirically
tested the impact of the configuration of urban physical environment on children’s location pre-
ference for play.
The first author (principal investigator [PI]) collected all primary data for this study. The PI
is familiar with the urban context of Dhaka and experienced in children’s environment research
(Bhuyan & Skelton, 2014). Data collection process involved four field trips from Singapore to
Dhaka (2 to 4 months each) between 2013 and 2017. The first field trip was a reconnaissance
survey for a pilot study (Bhuyan & Zhang, 2014). Piloting was necessary due to the lack of
available data collection instruments on children’s urban play and play spaces for the studied
context.
Research with children as participants needs to be ethical, sensitive, and respectful (Skelton,
2008). We secured prior approval from the institutional review board for all data collection
instruments related to human subjects. Informed consents were taken from all participants
362 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

Figure 1. Design of an integrated two-phase sequential mixed methods research strategy.

before collecting any personal data. The following sections describe the settings, applied meth-
ods, and their integration at various phases of this study.

Settings of the Study

We followed several strategies to maintain copresence of different data collection sites (such as
studied neighborhoods, schools, play spaces in the neighborhoods, etc.) within Dhaka. As
depicted in Figure 2, we first selected three residential areas—known as Sutrapur (Area 1),
Dhanmondi (Area 2), and Uttara (Area 3)—in Dhaka. Historically, Dhaka grew from south to
north (Ferdous, 2012). Sutrapur is in the southern part of Dhaka (popularly known as Old
Bhuyan and Zhang 363

Figure 2. Location of mixed methods data collection sites within the three selected urban areas in
Dhaka.

Dhaka). Dhanmondi and Uttara are in the central and northern part of the city, respectively.
The three selected study areas experienced urban developments in different times. Sutrapur
experienced rapid urban growth in British colonial period (1757-1947); Dhanmondi in the
Pakistan period (1947-1971); and Uttara in Sovereign Bangladesh period (1971 to present).
These three areas represent typical residential living environments in Dhaka, which is charac-
terized with patches of planned settlements surrounded by unplanned settlements (Nilufar,
1997).
We considered a demonstrative radius (approximately, 2 kilometers) that included planned
and unplanned areas within the selected areas. Gradually, we developed other criteria to specify
study areas within the demonstrative radius, recruit participants, and select play spaces for
detailed study. For example, one of the criteria to specify study area boundary was whether the
364 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

area has any ‘‘open’’ and recognizable play space, such as playgrounds, parks, green spaces,
and so on. We considered paid play facilities such as amusement parks as ‘‘not open.’’ To see
whether selected study areas have any open and recognizable play spaces, we consulted past
studies in Dhaka (Ahmed, 2011; Dasgupta et al., 2010; Nilufar, 1997), Google Maps, and GIS
maps supplied by the local planning authority. Subsequently, a list of schools and play spaces
(located adjacent to the selected schools and within the three residential area boundaries) were
finalized to collect mixed methods data.

Phase I
In the first phase, we used a range of subjective data collection methods including a survey of
children in schools and their respective parents, and interviews with children—a subgroup of
survey participants.

Survey and Interviews

We conducted survey and interviews in 8 schools (3 public schools and 5 private schools)
located within the three study areas. Sourcing children from schools allowed us to include both
boys and girls conveniently and maintain high control on age group (Islam, 2009). We focused
on children aged 7 to 15 years. Most studies on children’s outdoor play include middle-age
children ranging from 7 to 15 years (Harding, 1997; Mikkelsen & Christensen, 2009; Shaw et
al., 2010). Earlier studies in Dhaka reported that children start accessing urban outdoors inde-
pendently at the age of 10 to 12 years, close to the age when they move from primary to sec-
ondary school (Islam, 2009). We considered a buffer of 3 years around 10 to 12 years.
First, we sent emails to the heads of schools, located within the three selected study areas,
seeking assistance to source participants and conduct survey in their schools. Rate of email
response was nil. This was not surprising since only 13.2% of the population is subscribed to
any kind of internet service in Bangladesh (Internetlivestats, 2017). Subsequently, following a
direct meeting strategy, we shortlisted four schools from each of the three study areas and
arranged meeting with the heads of the schools. During the meetings, the PI showed printed
invitation letters and survey instruments to the respective heads of schools; informed him or
her about the topic and survey procedures; and if agreed, set a schedule for conducting the sur-
vey and interviews with children in the classrooms.
We used two different sets of questionnaires, one for children (aged 7-15 years) and another
for their parents. Questionnaires for children were directly administered inside classrooms (of
Level 2 to Level 7) on prescheduled dates by the PI. After each survey session with children
(30-40 minutes), questionnaires for respective parents were supplied to the participant children
and requested to bring it back to the school within a scheduled day (typically within 2 weeks).
An information sheet and a consent form for parents were supplied as well. The questionnaires
were written in English and translated in Bangla by the PI (who is a native Bangla speaker).
Translated questionnaires were validated by another qualified Bangla speaker.
In total, 308 children took part in the directly administered survey. The ratio of girls and
boys was fair (1:0.82). Fifty-five percent of the children returned parent’s questionnaires com-
pleted either by their mother, father, or an adult caregiver in the family. Children (n = 152)
who returned their parent’s questionnaire attended a follow-up interview session. School going
children’s performance in survey varies across age (Harding, 1997). We provided direct assis-
tance for children younger than 9 years during the survey and interviews. The PI repeatedly
read aloud and clarified all the questions to them.
Bhuyan and Zhang 365

Questionnaire for Children. We designed the questionnaire for children by considering local con-
text and by consulting past studies on children and their outdoor play environments (Harding,
1997; Islam, 2009; Lynch & Banerjee, 1977; Mikkelsen & Christensen, 2009; Pooley, Turnbull,
& Adams, 2005). Children’s questionnaire contained a mix of close-ended and open-ended
questions. The introductory part of the children’s questionnaire collected data on children’s
social profile, such as gender, age, and residential address (Mikkelsen & Christensen, 2009;
Pooley et al., 2005).
In order to understand the constructions of play and play space from children’s perspective,
we asked children to write down, on the supplied questionnaire, whatever comes to their mind,
when they hear the words ‘‘play’’ (khela) and ‘‘play space’’ (khelar jayga). To collect data on
children’s everyday life (Lynch & Banerjee, 1977) and their activities in school day and school
holiday (Harding, 1997), we provided a list of activities in ‘‘from-to’’ format with choice for
children to add other activities. The given list of activities included sleeping, eating, studying in
school, studying at home, studying at private tutor/coaching, dancing/singing/drawing classes,
watching TV/playing video games, playing inside the house, and playing outside of the house.
We included several questions on children’s perceived location preference for play, such as
whether they like to play (anywhere or outside of their house), whether they can mention names
of their preferred games and play spaces, and so on.
School going children play in the outdoors mostly with their friends (Whitebread, Basilio,
Kuvalja, & Verma, 2012; Woolley & Lowe, 2012) and they start exercising independent mobi-
lity through play (Bates & Stone, 2014). We asked children whether they have any friends in
the neighborhood; and if they have, ‘‘how many?’’; and whether they come back from school
alone; if yes, at which age they started to do so. With reference to earlier studies, we also asked
children about their satisfaction (by using a 5-point Likert-type scale) for a list of environmen-
tal aspects in their neighborhood (Davison & Lawson, 2006; Hillman, Adams, & Whitelegg,
1990; Islam, 2009; Kyttä, Kuoppa, Hirvonen, Ahmadi, & Tzoulas, 2014; Shaw et al., 2010).
Environmental aspects included the amount of available of play spaces in the neighborhood,
proximity of play spaces from home, cars on the way to the play space, people on the way to
the play spaces, parent’s permission to play, climatic factors (sun/rain/lightness/darkness), and
others.

Questionnaire for Parents. Data collection through children’s questionnaire has limitations since
children have limited ability to understand vocabulary (Fuchs, 2008). A survey of respective
parents was useful for the validation of children’s responses through triangulation and for gain-
ing parent’s perceptions on their child’s play and play environments (Wen et al., 2009). Parent’s
questionnaire contained 15 questions, both open-ended and close-ended, with relevant subques-
tions. Parent’s questionnaire collected data on children’s family background and home environ-
ment, such as length of stay in the current locality in years, ownership type of the current
residence (owner/renter), building type of the current house (number of stories), monthly
income of the household (in BDT), parent’s educational qualification, and household size.
Parents were asked whether they think playing outdoors is important for their child, whether
they are satisfied with the time that their children spend playing in the urban outdoors, how far
they allowed their child to move without assistance in the neighborhood (Carver, Veitch,
Sahlqvist, Crawford, & Hume, 2014), how much time their child spends on screenplay during
school day and school holiday, how frequently their child went out to play in the week immedi-
ately before the survey period, what kinds of games their child like to play most, and so on. To
gain parent’s perceptions on social and spatial aspects that might affect their children’s play in
the urban outdoors, parents were asked to assess the importance of the availability and proximity
366 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

of play spaces, and street connectivity for children’s outdoors play (Aarts, de Vries, van Oers, &
Schuit, 2012; Davison & Lawson, 2006; Islam, 2009).

Interviews With Children in Classroom Setting. Survey among children often fails to capture their
emotions and feelings (Hughes & Ackroyd, 1981). In order to better understand children’s
responses in the questionnaires (Rowiey, 2012), we conducted semistructured and one-to-one
follow-up interviews with children, who took part in the children’s survey and returned the com-
pleted parent’s questionnaire. Duration of each interview varied from 3 to 10 minutes. We asked
children additional open-ended questions based on the answers they provided in the question-
naire. Children’s responses on perceptions and preferences for play and play spaces, as provided
earlier in the questionnaire, were expanded during the follow-up interview sessions. For exam-
ple, if a child answered on the children’s questionnaire that he or she likes to play outside of
their house, he or she was asked, ‘‘Why do you like to play outside of your house?’’ Similarly,
if a child wrote down that play means ‘‘I feel happy’’ to him to her, the follow-up interview
asked whether he or she can elaborate his or her answer. Interview responses were noted down
by the PI in-situ. In addition, children, who were waiting in the classroom for their interview
turn to come, took part in an optional drawing exercise. Children were asked to draw their
‘‘dream play space’’ in the provided blank sheets of paper. One-to-one interviews and drawing
exercises helped this study appreciate children’s spontaneous participation and interest in our
research topic. Children were allowed to see his or her responses and interviewer’s notes during
the interviews.

Analysis of Subjective Data

We analyzed subjective data (i.e., children’s and their caregiver’s perceptions and conceptions
on play and play spaces) with reference to Grounded Theory (Glaser & Straus, 2017; Strauss &
Corbin, 1997). This involved iterative coding and categorization of subjective data followed by
thematic analysis (Charmaz, 2008; Cho & Lee, 2014; Tashakori & Teddie, 2010). For example,
children’s descriptions of ‘play’ (as reported during the survey and interviews and later, trans-
lated from Bangla to English by the PI) were coded on MS Excel. Then, the most frequented
phrases on play were grouped together to construct categories. Relative frequency and pattern
of stable categories were analyzed across gender, age, and social income group, location of
residences, and length of stay. As part of advanced mixed methods analysis, subjective data,
such as children’s reports on actual play and play spaces, were coded on Google My Maps and
drawn in scale on digital platforms (AutoCAD, ArcGIS and MapInfo) by using points, lines
and shapes. Most frequently mentioned play spaces and their geometric properties were super-
imposed with GIS maps collected from the local authority (RAJUK). This was useful for fina-
lizing play spaces for systematic observation and conducting spatial analysis in the second
phase.

Phase II
Data collection methods in the second phase involved systematic observation of play spaces
and their surrounding street network, and micro- and meso-spatial modeling of the configura-
tion of urban physical environments. To understand the variability of spatial accessibility range
or radius of a play space, systematic observation was supplemented by interviews of users (chil-
dren aged 7-15 years) in the observed play spaces.
Bhuyan and Zhang 367

Systematic Observation
We overcome the limitations of using survey and interviews, that is, the lack of accurately
describing objective characteristics of built environment (Lafontaine, Sawada, & Kristjansson,
2017), by including direct and structured observation of urban spaces in the three studied areas.
We selected the spaces for observation based on the learning from survey and interviews. Two
types of spaces were observed systematically: (1) identifiable play spaces (n = 21) and (2) seg-
ments (n = 212) of streets and alleyways in the neighborhoods. The PI observed each space 8
times, that is, 4 times a day, respectively for a weekday (from Sunday to Thursday) and a week-
end day (Friday and Saturday). Each observation was of 10 minutes duration and was conducted
with 3-hour intervals from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (local time). Nighttime (sun sets around 6 p.m. in
Dhaka) was excluded, since children in Dhaka mostly play during the day when there is natural
light in the outdoors. Systematic observation of play spaces was effective for measuring chil-
dren’s actual location preference for play (i.e., observed intensity of children’s play in a space).
We used Google My Maps (2016) and GIS maps, developed by the Capital Development
Authority (RAJUK) of Dhaka, to keep track of the observation points and to streamline the
observation process. We adopted ‘‘SOPARC’’ (System for Observing Play and Recreation in
Communities; Mckenzie, Cohen, Sehgal, Williumson, & Golinelli, 2006), and designed two
instruments to conduct observations: (1) a system for observing children’s play in the play
spaces that recorded play activities across age groups and gender groups and (2) a system for
observing movements and play across paths that recorded activities in the streets across age
groups and gender groups. Both these instruments had designated spaces for sketching and tak-
ing notes. Time and duration of observation and weather conditions (temperature/sunny/rainy)
were recorded for each observation. Photos were taken to record activities at various times and
to document physical features of the observed play spaces and streets.
We considered local weather conditions and contextual forces, such as rainy days, Eid-ul-
Azha and and Eid-ul-Fitre holidays, hartals (political shutdown), and so on. These events tem-
porarily affect children’s urban play in Dhaka. For example, during the weeklong Eid-ul-Azha
holidays, traffic in the streets of Dhaka remains unusually low, since many people leave the city
to celebrate Eid with their family and relatives in the villages. During Eid-ul-Azha, many of the
playgrounds are also used as temporary ‘‘cow markets’’ by the city corporation authority for
few days. Throughout the observation period, daytime temperature varied from 18°C to 31°C.
In addition to systematic observations in the play spaces, we conducted interviews with
young players (who were different from the participants in the school) to collect data on acces-
sibility range of the studied play spaces for children. These interviews (n = 210) were short (2-
5 minutes for each) and conducted with verbal consent from each interested interviewee.
Interviews in the play spaces included questions such as how far they traveled to play; which
mode of transport (walk/nonmotorized transport/motorized transport/combinations, etc.) they
used; how often they came to this place to play in the week immediately before the interview,
and so on. Participant’s house address (as detailed as they wanted to provide), gender profile,
and age were noted down during the interview. Interview responses, particularly children’s resi-
dential addresses within the three areas, were geo-coded on scaled GIS maps to calculate the
accessibility range of the studied play spaces.

Spatial Modeling
To study the configuration of the urban physical environments of the studied areas and play
spaces, we collected digital copies of the latest GIS maps provided by the urban development
authority in Dhaka (RAJUK). Based on the systematic observation of real spaces and maps, we
368 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

developed two kinds of spatial quality data sets: micro-spatial qualities or MiSQ (i.e., the geo-
metric configuration of an urban play space) and meso-spatial qualities or MeSQ (i.e., the
accessibility conditions of street networks surrounding a play space). Building on the outcomes
of the first phase and with reference to past studies in urban design (Islam, 2009; Loon &
Frank, 2011; Kyttä, 2004), we measured copresence of other age groups in a play space, size,
enclosure, amenities, green cover ratio, front-road geometry, and front-road business activities
as MiSQ indices. Drawing on the graph theory (Euler, 1741), we generated two types of MeSQ
units: (1) pedestrian street network segment line and (2) pedestrian street network segment line
and associated land-uses to measure MeSQ indices. With reference to advanced street network
analysis methods in urban morphology, we applied two types of distance measurement systems,
namely metric (Porta, Crucitti, & Latora, 2006; Sevtsuk, 2014) and topological (Hillier, 2012;
Hillier & Hanson, 1984), to generate indices for each type of MeSQ unit.

Analysis of Objective Data

Spatial analytical and statistical methods have been used to analyze objective data. Spatial anal-
ysis focused on measuring the micro- and meso-spatial qualities (MiSQ and MeSQ, respec-
tively) of the studied play spaces. We analyzed 17 MiSQ indices to evaluate the morphological
properties of the studied play spaces. Digital software such as AutoCAD and SPSS were used
for spatial coding of observed data and analyzing the MiSQ indices. We developed 63 MeSQ
indices to assess the spatial accessibility conditions of the studied play spaces. We used urban
spatial network analysis tools, such as DepthmapX (Turner, 2004), Place Syntax Tool (Stahle,
Marcus, & Karlstrom, 2007), UNA Toolbox (Sevtsuk & Mekonnen, 2012) within ArcGIS and
MapInfo platforms to analyze the MeSQ indices.
It is important to determine physical boundary or radius for MeSQ analysis of a play space.
We applied intra- and interphase integration technique (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017) in this
regard. For example, short interviews of children in the play spaces and subsequent spatial anal-
ysis of the geo-coded play spaces and residential locations (interphase integration) have been an
effective technique for determining appropriate radii for the MeSQ analysis (intraphase integra-
tion). Spatial coding of children’s (player’s) residential location with reference to play spaces
revealed that frequency of use of a play space by children is a factor of spatial proximity and
more than 80% of the children resided within 400 meters from a frequently used play space.
Based on this finding, 400 and 800 meters (more than 95% of the children resided within 800m
from a frequently used play space) were selected as the suitable radii for MeSQ analysis.
Assessment of MiSQ and MeSQ has been useful for the comparative assessment of the mor-
phological and accessibility conditions of the play spaces in the studied context. This also cre-
ated a baseline to statistically test whether configuration of urban physical environments affects
children’s location preference for play. We measured children’s location preference for play in
terms intensity of children’s play in the play spaces (ICP). ICP has been defined as the average
number of observed children using a unit area (1 acre) of a play space within the observation
period (10 minutes each).

Key Findings
While Phases I and II addressed specific research questions, the former informed the later in
our study. Outcomes of one phase added new insights to the other (Figure 3). In the first phase,
survey and interviews with children and their respective parents in schools exposed differential
constructions of children’s play and play spaces in Dhaka (Research Question 1 of this study).
They revealed both homogeneity and diversity of children’s perceptions and preferences for
Bhuyan and Zhang 369

Figure 3. Examples showing outcomes of (a) interviews and drawing exercise with children, (b) micro-
spatial analysis, and (c) statistical analysis superimposed map.

outdoor play across children’s age, gender, family income, residential locations, length of stay,
and so on. For example, thematic analysis of open-ended questions in the children’s question-
naire suggested that children summarized play as ‘‘happiness’’ (anondo lage) and ‘‘fun’’ (moja
lage) that take place within individual, social, and spatial constraints in the city.
370 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

[when I hear the word play], I get [so] overjoyed [that I’d do] something wrong. (Boy, 14)

[when I hear the word play space, I wish] if our neighborhood had a big playfield, it would be much
more fun; and we could be happier! (Girl, 15)

Children mentioned 50 different types of games (cricket, chua-chui, football, kana-machi,

badminton are the most frequented among them). Children also mentioned 484 different names
of their preferred play spaces. Some of the most preferred play spaces are playgrounds with or
without name, streets, leftover spaces near their houses, schools and school playgrounds, roof-
tops, and so on. Children’s drawings of ‘‘dream play spaces’’ highlighted natural elements, vari-
ous types of amenities, preferred games, and boundary conditions of play spaces. Children, and
their respective parents highlighted the importance of provision, proximity, and car-free safe
access routes to play spaces. They expressed low satisfaction about the current state of these
environmental aspects.
Diversity of children’s play practices were evident across children’s residential locations,
gender, age, and family income. For example, play preference in the outdoors was relatively
lower among girls than boys. Thirty two percent of the girls reported that they do not like to
play in the outdoors, comparatively, only 17% of the boys mentioned that they do not like to
play in the outdoors. When asked why they liked or did not like to play outside their home, girls
and boys provided different explanation. Boys who like to play in the outdoors highlighted pos-
itive social and spatial features such as sky, friends, people (with positive reflection), and so
on.

I get air, I like to see the sky, Isn’t it beautiful? Friends say goodbye . . . (Boy, 9)

Because, [I have] lots of fun. I feel happy. I want to be a cricketer! (Boy, 11)

I don’t feel good . . . staying long time at home. (Boy, 11)

A lot of people play outside. . . . We all can play in harmony. (Boy, 11)

Girls explained their low preference for outdoor play by highlighting the unfriendly social
environment, restrictions from their family and/or, unfriendly streets because of the car.

Outdoors are not so good, many people, bad people in the streets. (Girl, 13)

because, [my] mother does not allow [me to play outdoors]. Don’t know why! (Girl, 11)

Because, [there are] lots of cars in the street. (Girl, 11)

Parent’s report on children’s screenplay time on school days was higher for younger children
(aged 7-9 years, mean score = 1.9 hours/day) as compared with older children (aged 13-15
years, mean score = 1.3 hours/day). Parent’s report on weekly frequency of outdoor play, mea-
sured with a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = did not play outdoors in a week, 5 = played outdoors
daily in a week) was higher for children from middle-income group (mean score = 2.5) in a
comparison to those from low- and high-income groups (mean score = 2.5).
Results from systematic observations reveal that mean ICP (i.e., the intensity of children’s
play in the play spaces) was 24 users/acre/10 minutes, while it varied across play spaces (from
2 users/acre/10 minutes to 67 users/acre/10 minutes). Boys were using urban play spaces 11.4
Bhuyan and Zhang 371

times more than girls of the same age group. All these explorative outcomes in the first phase
were useful for developing indices for micro- and meso-spatial analysis and defining variables
for regression studies in the second phase.
We applied high-resolution spatial analysis, measured in terms of MiSQ and MeSQ indices,
to assess the configuration of the studied play spaces and their surrounding areas (Research
Question 2 of this study). Results reveal that MiSQ and MeSQ vary significantly across play
spaces and street segments, respectively. Measurement of MiSQ and MeSQ indices for 21 play
spaces in three study areas enabled us to successfully test the impact of urban physical environ-
ments on children’s location preference for play (third problem of this study). Multivariate
regression results confirm that children’s location preference for play is significantly influenced
by both morphological or MiSQ (R2 = 0.212, p \ .000) and accessibility or MeSQ (R2 = 0.216,
p \ .000) indices of a play space.
Notable MiSQ indices related to ICP are the enclosure of a play space (r = 0.326, p \ .01)
and small business intensity in the front street of a play space (r = 0.40, p \ .05). Higher enclo-
sure of a play space (i.e., higher degree of visual opaqueness from the adjacent streets) and the
higher rate of small businesses in the front street were associated with higher ICP. Correlation
studies involving the MeSQ indices show that both metric (such as, Land-Use Reach to medium
volume vehicular intersections within 400 meters from a play space) and topological (such as,
Place Syntax Accessibility to vehicular intersections within 400 m from a play space) measures
are significantly correlated to ICP. Among all the MeSQ indices, Space Syntax Choice within
400 meters from a play space (a topological measure that accounts for the connectivity of pedes-
trian networks) showed the highest predictive strength (r = 0.273, p \ .01). MeSQ indices
involving both network segments only and network segments combined with land-uses are sig-
nificantly correlated to ICP. These results extend current debates in urban morphology about the
primacy of metric and topological accessibility measures (Hillier & Penn, 2004; Ratti, 2004) in
assessing children’s play environments in the city and highlight the need for methodological
integration of subjective preferences of children with different spatial representation methods
during spatial assessment and planning for play.

Discussion
We presented a new integrated MMR strategy while exploring the constructions of children’s play
and play space in Dhaka; modeling urban spatial configuration with respect to children’s play; and
subsequently examining the impact of the urban configuration on children’s location preference for
play. The novelty of our strategy lies in how participatory and advanced spatial analytical research
approaches are used to complement each other in children’s environment studies. The integrated
MMR strategy with a two-phase exploratory sequential design has been instrumental in addressing
the multifaceted and complex sociospatial aspects of our study. While directly administered survey
and interviews in the first phase have been a fun learning experience for us as researchers to
appreciate children’s participation and interest in the research topic, systematic observation and
spatial modeling in the second phase allowed us to document physical environments of play and
their use pattern, conduct high-resolution spatial simulation using GIS, and identify the impact of
urban physical environments on children’s location preference for play.
Mixed methods outcomes strengthened human ecologist’s assertion that children’s play must
be understood in real environments rather than only in laboratory settings (Bronfenbrenner,
1993). Results revealed different aspects of children’s wellbeing in Dhaka, such as happiness
and joy in everyday life, while highlighting the social and spatial constraints of play. Social
exclusions and contradictions of play in terms of gender, family income, and so on, are evident
in our empirical outcomes. These differential aspects of children’s play are often ignored in
372 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

existing play theories. For example, play is considered nonprofit in nature and having little rele-
vance with material world (Gray, 2013; Huizinga, 1949). Our findings suggest that children’s
play takes place in contested and costly urban spaces. Besides social constraints, our micro- and
meso-spatial analysis showed that children’s outdoor play is significantly affected by measur-
able spatial conditions (residential location, morphology, and accessibility of play spaces and
street network, etc.) that are beyond children’s control. Results suggest a renewed attention on
MMR studies, particularly in its potential to combine participatory social research methods with
advanced and context-sensitive spatial analysis in GIS platforms in children’s play environment
studies. Urban scholars repeatedly emphasized the importance of incorporating children’s views
and participation (Hart, 2011; Lynch & Banerjee, 1977) and the role of street networks (Mehta,
2007; Zako, 2009) in the planning and design of children’s play spaces.

Contribution to the Mixed Methods Literature

Mixed methods outcomes in our study contribute to existing debates in urban studies whether
individual or collective social actions (in this case, children’s play) produce and define urban
space, and whether the configuration of urban spaces, in this case play spaces and their sur-
rounding street networks and land-uses, affect social phenomena, such as children’s play
(Westin, 2015). Participation of all stakeholders, and most important children, in the process of
making urban play space is important. In this regard, spatial analysis must draw from both sub-
jective (such as, preferences of children and their parents) and objective (such as, configuration
of a play space) dimensions of space in order to further our understanding on the dialectics of
urban space (Lefebvre et al., 2014; Sargin & Savas, 2012).
Diverse and complementary outcomes from a range of social and spatial analytical methods
in the two phases of our study highlight the benefits of using integrated MMR strategy in addres-
sing complex urban issues related to children’s play (Christina et al., 2018). Outcomes of one
method add new insights to the other. For example, findings from the first phase (i.e., survey and
interviews of children) suggest that the perceived difference between boys’ and girls’ preference
for outdoor play is 18%. However, observation results in the second phase reveal that the differ-
ence between boys’ and girls’ actual use of an outdoor play space is 82%. Both findings support
results from earlier studies in Dhaka that boys use outdoors play spaces more compared with
girls (Ahmed, 2011; Islam, 2009). Both participatory and spatial analytical findings confirm the
negative role of cars in the streets for children’s location preference for play. MMR outcomes
also add interesting planning and design consideration for play spaces in the context. For exam-
ple, presence and distribution of trees are important considerations for the design of outdoor play
space design. In contrast to traditional understanding, correlation results in this study show that
higher percentage of green foliage coverage within a play space affects children’s location pre-
ference for play negatively. We can explain such spatial analytical results only by combining
them with the findings from the qualitative study, where children reported that they mostly like
to play cricket and football. These two games demand flat and unobstructed surface. Thus, a play
space with many trees within its boundary attracts fewer children as compared with the one with
few trees at the periphery.
Tools and techniques to link subjective data to spatially referenced GIS data are emerging in
MMR scholarship, particularly in planning-oriented studies (Fielding, 2012; Knigge & Cope,
2006). Besides addressing the stated research questions, application of a unique MMR strategy
with exploratory sequential design has been useful in our study for formulating a novel spatial
analytical framework that puts children at the center of urban spatial analysis and emphasizes
the role of both playground and street network in the planning and design of children’s play
spaces. Three key dimensions of this framework are people, place, and path (Figure 4)—we call
Bhuyan and Zhang 373

Figure 4. 3P (People-place-path) as an integrated spatial analytical framework to study differential play

spaces at multiple levels in the city.

it ‘‘3P Framework’’. The framework facilitates spatial analysis of social phenomena, in this
case, children’s location preference for play and micro- and meso-spatial qualities of play spaces
in Dhaka. People refers to children’s differential perceptions and location preferences for play.
People dimension has been explored using participatory research tools such as interviews,
directly administered survey, visual documentation, and so forth. Place and path refer to the
immediate environment qualities and the accessibility conditions of a play space respectively.
They have been studied with reference to tools such as systematic observations and map studies
leading to micro- and meso-spatial analytical models at different scales. Application and inter-
pretation of outcomes from this framework highlight the limitations of ‘‘playground’’ as a plan-
ning concept. The concept of ‘‘playground’’ as spatial setting for children’s play goes back to
the ‘‘playground movements’’ during the industrial revolution in the West (1760s-1840s; Curtis,
1917). Playground movements at that time sought to protect children from the perils of urbani-
zation and contributed to the development of ‘‘playground’’ as a confined place. Rationales of
playground movements are still relevant in the emerging South Asian cities. However, over the
past two centuries children’s independent mobility and play in car-dominated urban streets and
open spaces have changed significantly all over the world (Shaw et al., 2010). Planned and stan-
dardized playgrounds for children, typically fenced and alienated from other urban spaces, sel-
dom consider actual play and mobility behaviors of children (Rudner, 2012). It is important to
rethink the concept of playground in order to ensure children’s right to play in each urban street
and open space. Drawing on the learning from this mixed methods study, we propose an alterna-
tive concept called ‘‘Playpolis’’ (derived from Middle Dutch pleien for ‘‘leap for joy’’ and
Greek polis for ‘‘city state’’). Playpolis calls for a renewed emphasis on the multidisciplinary
studies of children’s differential perception and location preference for play in all potential
urban spaces and street networks at multiple spatial levels.

Conclusion
Scholars highlight the implication of MMR in the process of de-disciplining, that is, looking
beyond disciplinary boundaries by asking questions that lie in the borders of multiple
374 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

disciplines (Hesse-Biber & Johnson, 2013). We described an MMR strategy that uniquely com-
bines theories and methods in architecture and urban studies, children’s geographies, sociology,
and psychology. Authentic participation of children and their community to help inform archi-
tectural and urban design is at the core of this strategy (Hart, 2011). Outcomes show high appli-
cation potential of MMR and its integration strategies in expanding our understanding on the
dialectics of urban space and children’s play, particularly in rapidly urbanizing South Asian cit-
ies. Dialectical understanding of space can facilitate new ways to alleviate practical urban prob-
lems by rethinking design paradigms in new urban conditions (Sargin & Savas, 2012).
The methodology proposed in this study can be scaled up by team research and applied to
other high-density urban settings. While children’s play has been the key focus of this study, the
integrated methodology can be explored to study outdoor activities of other age groups such as
older adults. MMR approaches in this direction need to address limitations regarding small sam-
ple size, observation bias, and external validity of outcomes and interpretations. Practical issues
such as availability of skilled workforce, time, climatic and local urban conditions need to be
considered while applying MMR with explorative sequential design in children’s play environ-
ment studies. Future studies might explore greater potentials of MMR by explicitly comparing
children’s drawings of dream play spaces to observed qualities of actual play spaces to reveal
interesting gaps in current play space planning and design.

Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Dr. Cho Im Sik, Dr. Tracey Skelton, and the anonymous reviewers for their
valuable feedback on the contents of this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article: The study received financial support from the National University of Singapore
Research Fund.

ORCID iD
Md Rashed Bhuyan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5931-925X

Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
Aarts, M. J., de Vries, S. I., van Oers, H. A., & Schuit, A. J. (2012). Outdoor play among children in
relation to neighborhood characteristics: A cross-sectional neighborhood observation study.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 98. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-98
Ahmed, A. (2011). Factors and issues related to children’s play and their implications on play and recreation
provision in Dhaka City (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/7819
Anam, M. (2015, May 8). Dhanmondi playground reopens to public: We commend the judicious decision.
The Daily Star. Retrieved from http://www.thedailystar.net
Bhuyan and Zhang 375

Bates, B., & Stone, M. R. (2014). Measures of outdoor play and independent mobility in children and
youth: A methodological review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 545-552. doi:
10.1016/j.jsams.2014.07.006
Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bhuyan, M. R., & Skelton, T. (2014). Planned housing environments and children’s outdoor play: Is
child-friendliness possible? In L. H. Lye, R. V. Savage, L. M. Chou, L. E. Yu, & H. Kua, (Eds),
Sustainability matters: Asia’s energy. (pp. 265-287). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
Bhuyan, M. R., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Accessibility of play spaces in Dhanmondi Residential Area, Dhaka,
Bangladesh. Proceedings of the 6th Great Asian Streets Symposium: Asian Urban Places (pp. 180-187).
Singapore: National University of Singapore.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.),
Readings on the development of children (2nd ed., pp. 37-43). New York, NY: Freeman.
Carver, A., Veitch, J., Sahlqvist, S., Crawford, D., & Hume, C. (2014). Active transport, independent
mobility and territorial range among children residing in disadvantaged areas. Journal of Transport &
Health, 1, 267-273.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Reconstructing grounded theory. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of social research methods (pp. 461-478). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis:
Similarities and differences. Qualitative Report, 19, 2, 1-20.
Christina, S. H., Masse, L. C., Wilson, A., Janssen, I., Schuurman, N., & Brussoni, M. (2018). State of
play: Methodologies for investigating children’s outdoor play and independent mobility. Children,
Youth and Environments, 28, 194-231.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curtis, H. S. (1917). The play movement and its significance. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dasgupta, S., Huq, M., Khan, Z. H., Ahmed, M. M. Z., Mukherjee, N., Khan, M. F., & Pandey, K. D.
(2010, April). Vulnerability of Bangladesh to cyclones in a changing climate: Potential damages and
adaptation cost (Policy Research Working Paper 5280). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Davison, K. K., & Lawson, C. T. (2006). Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s
physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 3, 19. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-3-19
Dures, E., Rumsey, N., Morris, M., & Gleeson, K. (2011). Mixed methods in health psychology:
Theoretical and practical considerations of the third paradigm. Journal of Health Psychology, 16,
332-341.
Ellin, N. (1999). Postmodern urbanism (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
Ellin, N. (2006). Integral urbanism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Euler, L. (1741). Solutio Problematis ad Geometriam Situs Pertinentis. Commentarii Academiae
Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae, 8, 128-140.
Ferdous, F. (2012). The spatial analysis and morphological evolution of the ‘‘Bazaar Streets’’ and urban
structure of Dhaka city. Urban Design International, 17, 206-220.
Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2017). The Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new
decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 11(3), 291-307.
Fielding, N., & Cisneros-Puebla, C. A. (2009). CAQDAS-GIS convergence: Toward a new integrated
mixed method research practice?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 349-370.
Fielding, N. G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research
technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136.
Freeman, C., & Tranter, P. (2011). Children and their urban environment: Changing worlds. London,
England: Earthscan.
Freeman, C., Tranter, P., & Skelton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Risk, protection, provision and policy (Vol. 12).
Singapore: Springer.
Fuchs, M. (2008). The reliability of children’s survey responses: The impact of cognitive functioning on
respondent behavior. In Statistic Canada’s International Symposium 2008: Data Collection:
376 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

Challenges, Achievements and New Directions. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/adaf/

9177a2c1d3478cd3c079c1ca6fee8f1f1ed9.pdf
Gill, T. (2007). Can I play out . . . ? Lessons from London’s Play’s homes zones project. London, England:
London Play and London Councils.
Glaser, B. G., & Straus, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Gray, P. (2013). Definitions of play. Scholarpedia, 8, 30578.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-
27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harding, D. J. (1997, July). Measuring children’s time use: A review of methodologies and findings
(Working Paper Series 97-1). Princeton, NJ: Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child
Wellbeing.
Hart, R. A. (2011). Planning cities with children in mind: A background paper for the State of the World’s
Children Report. New York: City University of New York.
Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible
engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103-109.
Hillier, B. (2012). The genetic code for cities: Is it simpler than we think? In J. Portugali, H. Mayer, E.
Stolk, & E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity theories of cities have come of age (pp. 129-152). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Hillier, B., & Penn, A. (2004). Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti. Environment and Planning B, 31, 501-511.
Hillier, B., & Vaughan, L. (2007). The city as one thing. Progress in Planning, 67, 205-230.
Hillman, M. J., Adams, J., & Whitelegg, J. (1990). One false move: A study of children’s independent
mobility. London, England: Policy Studies Institute.
Holloway, S. L. (2014). Changing children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 12, 377-392. doi:
10.1080/14733285.2014.930414
Hossain, S. (2008). Rapid urban growth and poverty in Dhaka city. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, 5,
1. Retrieved from http://www.bangladeshsociology.org
Howard, J., Miles, G. E., Rees-Davies, L., & Bertenshaw, E. J. (2017). Play in middle childhood: Everyday
play behaviour and associated emotions. Children & Society, 31, 378-389. doi:10.1111/chso.12208
Hughes, J. A., & Ackroyd, S. (1981). Data collection in context. New York, NY: Longman.
Hume, C., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2005). Children’s perceptions of their home and neighborhood
environments, and their association with objectively measured physical activity: A qualitative and
quantitative study. Health Education Research, 20, 1-13.
Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London, England: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research. (2016). Solving public health problems through
innovative scientific research (Annual Report). Dhaka, Bangladesh: Author.
Internetlivestats. (2017). Internet users in Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/
internet-users/bangladesh/
Islam, M. Z. (2009). Children and urban neighborhoods: Relationships between outdoor activities of
children and neighborhood physical characteristics in Dhaka, Bangladesh (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Jensen, K. B. (2014). Space-time geography of female live-in child domestic workers in Dhaka,
Bangladesh. Children’s Geographies, 12, 154-169. doi:10.1080/14733285.2013.783986
Johnson, R. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173. doi:
10.1177/1558689815607692
Jung, J. (2009). Computer-aided qualitative GIS: A software-level integration of qualitative research and
GIS. In M. Cope & S. Elwood (Eds.), Qualitative GIS: A new approach (pp. 115-136). London,
England: Sage.
Karsten, L. (2002). Mapping childhood in Amsterdam: The spatial and social construction of children’s
domain in the city. Tijdscrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93, 231-241.
Bhuyan and Zhang 377

Knigge, L., & Cope, M. (2006). Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and
quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning A: Economy
and Space, 38, 2021-2037.
Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances
as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 179-198.
Kyttä, M., Kuoppa, J., Hirvonen, J., Ahmadi, E., & Tzoulas, T. (2014). Perceived safety of the retrofit
neighborhood: A location-based approach. Urban Design International, 19, 311-328.
Lafontaine, S. J., Sawada, M., & Kristjansson, E. (2017). A direct observation method for auditing large
urban centers using stratified sampling, mobile GIS technology and virtual environments. International
Journal of Health Geographics, 16, 6. doi:10.1186/s12942-017-0079-7
Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The production of space (S. D. Nicholson, Trans.). Oxford,
England: Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)
Lefebvre, H., Stanek, L., & Bononno, R. (2014). Toward an architecture of enjoyment. London, England:
University of Minnesota Press.
Lopez-Fernandez, O., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The use of mixed methods research in the field of
behavioural sciences. Quality & Quantity, 45, 1459. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9543-9
Loon, J. V., & Frank, L. (2011). Urban form relationships with youth physical activity: Implications for
research and practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 26, 280-308.
Lynch, K., & Banerjee, T. (1977). Growing up in the cities: Studies of the spatial environment of
adolescence in Cracow, Melbourne, Mexico City, Salta, Toluca and Warszawa. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Matthews, H., & Limb, M. (1999). Defining an agenda for the geography of children: Review and
prospect. Progress in Human Geography, 23, 61-90.
Mckenzie, T. L., Cohen, D. A., Sehgal, A., Williumson, S., & Golinelli, D. (2006). System for observing
play and recreation in communities (SOPARC): Reliability and feasibility measures. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 3, 208-222.
Mehta, V. (2007). Lively streets, determining environmental characteristics to support social behavior.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 165-187.
Merrifield, A. (2002). Dialectical urbanism: Social struggles in the capitalist city. New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.
Mikkelsen, M. R., & Christensen, P. (2009). Is children’s independent mobility really independent? A
study of children’s mobility combining ethnography and GPS/mobile phone technologies. Mobilities,
4, 37-58.
Nilufar, F. (1997). The spatial and social structuring of local area in Dhaka city: A morphological study
of the urban grid with reference to neighborhood character within naturally grown areas (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University College London, London, England.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2009). Research and policy on children’s play. Child Development Perspectives, 3,
131-136.
Pooley, C., Turnbull, J., & Adams, M. (2005). A mobile century? Changes in everyday mobility in Britain
in the twentieth century. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Porta, S., Crucitti, P., & Latora, V. (2006). The network analysis of urban streets: A primal approach.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 705-725.
Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood and modern society: A paradoxical relationship? In J. Branner & M.
O’Brien (Eds.), Childhood and parenthood: Proceedings of ISA Committee for Family Research
Conference on Children and Families (pp. 189-198). London, England: University of London, Institute
of Education.
Ratti, C. (2004). Space syntax: Some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B, 31, 487-499.
Rigolon, A., & Flohr, T. L. (2014). Access to parks for youth as an environmental justice issue: Access
inequalities and possible solutions. Buildings, 4, 69-94.
Rowiey, J. (2012). Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, 35, 260-271.
Rudner, J. (2012). Public knowing of risk and children’s independent mobility. Progress in Planning, 78,
1-53. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2012.04.001
Ryan, K. W. (2011). The new wave of childhood studies: Breaking the grip of bio-social
dualism?Childhood, 19, 439-452.
378 Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(3)

Sargin, G. A., & Savas, A. (2012). Dialectical urbanism: Tactical instruments in urban design education.
Cities, 29, 358-368.
Sevtsuk, A. (2014). Location and agglomeration: The distribution of retail and food businesses in dense
urban environments. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34, 374–393.
Sevtsuk, A., & Mekonnen, M. (2012). Urban network analysis: A new toolbox for ArcGIS. Revue
Internationale de Geomatique, 22, 287-305.
Shaw, B., Watson, B., Frauendiest, B., Redecker, A., Jones, T., & Hillman, M. (2010). Children’s
independent mobility: A comparative study in England and Germany (1971-2010). London, England:
Policy Studies Institute.
Sivam, A., Karuppannan, S., Koohsari, M. J., & Sivam, A. (2012). Does urban design influence physical
activity in the reduction of obesity? A review of evidence. Open Urban Studies Journal, 5, 14-21.
Skelton, T. (2008). Research with children and young people: Exploring the tensions between ethics,
competence and participation. Children’s Geographies, 6, 21-36.
Skelton, T., & Gough, K. V. (2013). Introduction: Young people’s Im/mobile urban geographies. Urban
Studies, 50, 455-466.
Stahle, A., Marcus, L., & Karlstrom, A. (2007). Place Syntax Tool: GIS software for analysing geographic
accessibility with axial lines. In New developments in space syntax software (pp. 35-42). Istanbul,
Turkey: ITU Faculty of Architecture.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. London, England: Sage.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tashakori, A., & Teddie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tilman, R., & Knap, T. (1999). John Dewey’s unknown critique of marginal utility doctrine:
Instrumentalism, motivation, and values. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 35,
391-408.
Tremblay, M. S., Gray, C., Babcock, S., Barnes, L., Bradstreet, C. C., Carr, D., . . . Brussoni, M. (2015).
Position statement on active outdoor play. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 12, 6475-6505.
Turner, A. (2004). Depthmap 4: A researcher’s handbook. London, England: University College London.
United Nations. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision, highlights (Vol. ST/ESA/
SER.A/352). New York, NY: Author.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1990). United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (Human Rights Office of the High Comissioner). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/
documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf
Walker, M., Whyatt, D., Pooley, C., Davies, G., Coulton, P., & Bamford, W. (2009). Talk, technologies
and teenagers: Understanding the school journey using a mixed-methods approach. Children’s
Geographies, 7, 107-122. doi:10.1080/14733280902798829
Wen, L. M., Kite, D., & Merom, C. R. (2009). Time spent playing outdoors after school and its
relationship with independent mobility: A cross-sectional survey of children aged 10-12 years in
Sydney, Australia. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, 15. doi:
10.1186/1479-5868-6-15
Westin, S. (2015). ‘‘To know is to know one’s geometry’’: Reflections on the problem of inference in
space syntax from the viewpoint of a human geographer. Journal of Space Syntax, 6, 1-18.
Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2012). The importance of play: A report on the
value of children’s play with a series of policy recommendations. Retrieved from http://
www.importanceofplay.eu/IMG/pdf/dr_david_whitebread_-_the_importance_of_play.pdf
Woolley, H., & Lowe, A. (2012). Exploring the relationship between design approach and play value of
outdoor play spaces. Landscape Research, 38, 53-74.
Zako, R. (2009). Young people’s gatherings in the urban public realm: Enhancement of or distraction
from its liveability. In D. Koch, L. Marcus, & J. Steen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International
Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 066.1-066.16). Stockholm, Sweden: KTH. Retrieved from http://
urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-24115