Author:
Barai Nandita,Faruk Mohammad
Abstract
Purpose
Child friendly space (CFS) has been introduced worldwide as an effective Child Protection response to the affected children in emergency to restore their life through psychosocial support programs. An effective physical environment is crucial to accommodate the psychosocial activities of a CFS. Several guidelines have stated minimum standards regarding design and implementation of a CFS. However, different case studies show that the physical set-up of CFS varies in different contexts. Therefore, there is a scope to analyze the physical environment of CFSs in the context of Rohingya camps based on those standards.
Design/methodology/approach
Very few guidelines have solely discussed the criteria of physical design and implementation of a CFS. First, the study develops an assessment tool by sorting out those standards from available sources. Secondly, the study follows multiple case study research approach to assess physical environment of four CFSs in Rohingya camps, Cox’s Bazar based on those standards using direct observation, photographic analysis and key informant interview as survey tools.
Findings
Major findings reveal that local factors such as topography, availability of land and density have great impact on physical environment on CFSs in Cox’s Bazar beyond the minimum standards, which indicates the importance of considering local factors while designing a CFS for a given context.
Originality/value
Solely demonstrates the need of considering the benchmarks as well as local factors, which will contribute to the knowledge of policymakers and implementers during designing and implementing a CFS for a specific context.
Subject
Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality,Building and Construction
Reference31 articles.
1. Child friendly spaces: a systematic review of the current evidence base on outcomes and impact;Intervention,2013
2. ‘Refugee camps at landslide risk: studying mitigation ‘measures,2022
3. How design of the physical environment impacts early learning;Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,2011
4. Catholic Relief Services (2018), “Quality checklist for child psychosocial support and child friendly spaces”, pp. 6-8, available at: www.crs.org/sites/default/files/tools-research/meal4kids_cfs_checklist_low_res.pdf
5. Child Protection Sub-Sector–- Bangladesh (2021), “Cox’s Bazar: child protection sub-sector partners operational presence”, p. 1, available at: www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/ www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/cp_operational_presence_17032021.pdf