4.5 Article

Fostering Children's Participation in Disaster Risk Reduction Through Play: A Case Study of LEGO and Minecraft

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13753-021-00375-1

关键词

Children's participation; Disaster risk reduction; New Zealand; Participatory game tools

资金

  1. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article focuses on the importance of children's participation in disaster risk reduction, using tools such as LEGO and Minecraft to engage children in assessing disaster risk and identifying preparedness strategies. The research highlights four key elements of genuine children's participation, emphasizing the role of play in empowering children to influence decision-making processes that affect them.
This article focuses on children's participation in disaster risk reduction. It draws on a 2018 study done in New Zealand with 33 school children who conducted participatory mapping with LEGO and the video game Minecraft to assess disaster risk in their locality and identify ways to be more prepared. The research involved participatory activities with the children actively involved in the co-design, implementation, and evaluation of the initiative. A focus group discussion was also conducted to assess the project from the viewpoint of the schoolteachers. The results indicate that LEGO and Minecraft are playful tools for children to participate in disaster risk reduction. The research identifies four key elements of genuine children's participation, including the Participants, Play, the Process, and Power (4 Ps). This framework emphasizes that fostering children's participation in disaster risk reduction requires focusing on the process through which children gain power to influence decisions that matter to them. The process, through play, is child-centered and fosters ownership. The article concludes that Play is essential to ground participation within children's worldviews and their networks of friends and relatives.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据