Next Article in Journal
Full Competition and Innovation
Previous Article in Journal
Emergency Preparedness in China’s Urban Rail Transit System: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 2
10.3390/su17020525
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Child-Friendly Cities from the Web of Science, 2004–2024

by
Huangna Shu
and
Guoquan Zheng
*
Faculty of Landscape Architecture, Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, Hangzhou 311300, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(2), 525; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020525
Submission received: 2 December 2024 / Revised: 2 January 2025 / Accepted: 9 January 2025 / Published: 11 January 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The construction of child-friendly cities has become a global issue, and the diverse needs of children during their growth has attracted widespread attention. This study uses CiteSpace 6.4.1 to perform a visual analysis of 966 papers published from 2004 to 2024 in the SSCI, SCI, ESCI, and A&HCI citation indexes of the Web of Science database. First, the study analyzes the publication trends over the past two decades in the context of different citation indexes and research fields. Then, we identify influential journals, institutions, countries, author institutions, and funding agencies within this domain. Additionally, this study uses the visualized results to outline the core keywords and research themes in child-friendly city research, clarifying the development trajectory of the field and identifying future research priorities and hotspots. The results derived from CiteSpace and bibliometric analysis will assist future researchers and practitioners in a better understanding of the comprehensive framework of child-friendly city research, thereby advancing the progress of child-friendly city construction under the broader context of sustainable urban development.

1. Introduction

Children are a key force for future development, and the rapid urbanization and resulting environmental changes increasingly affect them [1,2]. The high-density living environment, traffic safety issues, and lack of public spaces for activity all have a negative impact on children’s physical and mental health. Multiple studies have been reported showing that the rate of childhood obesity has shown a significant upward trend in the past few decades, which has also caused a large number of psychological and behavioral problems such as childhood anxiety and depression [3]. When considering current global urban development from the perspective of child development, many shortcomings remain. From a broader macro perspective, current global issues such as child poverty [4,5], the lack of basic public services in cities [6], limited space for children’s activities [7], and reduced physical activity among children [8] all impact children’s fundamental survival, physical security, and the sustainable development of their future. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), approximately 55 percent of the world’s children live in cities or urban areas, which accounts for about 1.18 billion children [9]. And there is no denying that this number will expand with the development of society and cities.
As a vulnerable group in society, the expression of their needs and the protection of their rights depend on social consensus as a basic premise. In 1996, UNICEF launched the Child-Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI), calling on global action in urban design and policy making. It aims to prioritize the needs of children, protect their basic rights and interests, and raise awareness across society about the importance of a child-friendly urban environment [10].
Child-friendly urban construction, through urban space design, influences children’s physical and mental health, cognitive development, and social adaptation, ultimately ensuring their well-being. For example, urban green spaces encourage children’s natural interaction [11,12], and well-planned street-crossing facilities ensure their safety in traffic [13]. Gao [14] noted that the design of the urban environment also influences children’s perception of safety, which in turn affects their behaviors and activities. Karen [15] mentioned that the design of the living environment plays a crucial role in influencing children’s health. A child-friendly urban space gives children a sense of attachment and belonging [16]. The CFCI does not prescribe overly detailed designs but provides a general framework. This is because the goals of child-friendly city development vary in different regions with diverse infrastructure construction and children’s requirements. Additionally, the effectiveness of implementation varies across different cultural contexts [17].
The construction of child-friendly cities not only addresses the direct needs of children but is also closely linked to various aspects of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The construction of child-friendly cities aims to create a safe, healthy, diverse, and sustainable environment for children to grow up in—one that remains stable and resilient to social changes [18,19]. This definition closely aligns with several key SDG targets, particularly those focusing on health, well-being, quality education, reduced inequalities, and sustainable cities and communities [20]. For example, child-friendly cities create livable environments for children by improving public spaces’ environmental quality [21,22]. Another example is that, through the construction of child-appropriate urban spaces and services, child-friendly cities ensure intergenerational equity, shaping urban environments that are better equipped to meet future environmental challenges and societal needs [23]. Broadly speaking, as an integral part of sustainable urban development, the concept and practices of child-friendly cities provide a key pathway toward advancing SDGs.
This paper conducts a literature review on child-friendly cities. While there is extensive research on children, including areas such as children’s health and education, it should encompass a broader scope. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children have the right to development and participation, in conjunction with the right to life, protection, and health [24,25]. Recognizing children as autonomous members of society, rather than merely objects to “be cared for”, is a cognitive shift that takes time. It is a process that requires the entire society to build a consensus. Existing research on children’s physical and mental development and child-friendly city construction is often limited to a single perspective [26,27] or only based on case studies in specific regions [28,29] with few comprehensive comparative studies. Review studies are comprehensive surveys and analyses of previous research on a specific topic. Based on the current literature, this paper summarizes key research findings, analyzes the core elements of child-friendly cities and their impact on children’s overall development, and provides insights for child-friendly urban planning and policy making.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the research data and methodology. Section 3 reviews the current status of child-friendly city research through a visual representation of the literature. Finally, Section 4 discusses the main conclusions and future trends.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Search Strategy

Bibliometric analysis quantifies the literature data to help researchers organize the knowledge structure. It plays a crucial role in tracking research trends and identifying emerging patterns [30]. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive and systematic review of the research literature on child-friendly cities based on bibliometric analysis. Web of Science and Scopus are two widely used databases in bibliometric analysis [31]. Compared to Scopus, Web of Science offers a more detailed classification of research fields, enabling a more precise focus on specific subfields within child-friendly city research. The Web of Science Core Collection encompasses a total of 10 index databases, covering a wide array of research fields across natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. This comprehensive collection includes diverse types of scholarly materials, such as journal articles, conference proceedings, patents, and books [32,33,34,35]. As a widely used academic publication and citation database for many years, it has consistently served researchers by providing daily search capabilities and access to datasets. Additionally, the Web of Science, the oldest, most widely used, and most authoritative database for academic publications and citations, has consistently provided researchers with daily search capabilities and access to datasets [36]. Therefore, this study is based on the Web of Science database.
To ensure the quality of the selected literature, the literature retrieval was carried out using the SSCI (Social Science Citation Index), SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded), ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index), and A&HCI (Arts and Humanities Citation Index) indexes from the Web of Science Core Collection. The search includes the following sub-databases:
  • Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED): 1900–2024
  • Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI): 1998–2024
  • Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI): 1998–2024
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI): 2019–2024
After reviewing the extensive relevant literature, the following search terms were identified: TS = “child-friendly city” OR “child-friendly urban design” OR “child-friendly built environment” OR “child-friendly urban planning” OR “child urban planning”. The literature search covered the period from January 2004 to November 2024. In 2004, the United Nations released the “Child-Friendly Cities: A Guide for Action”, which further developed the content of the CFCI and provided specific methods for creating child-friendly cities, accelerating the global movement toward child-friendly urban development [37]. Since then, many cities have actively implemented child-friendly city projects. For example, Denver, USA launched the Denver CYFC Program (Children, Youth, and Families Collaborative) [38], Australia introduced a national framework for children’s health and well-being [39], Ghent, Belgium launched a five-year initiative for the “Best City for Children”, and Rotterdam, the Netherlands, completed the implementation of the “Child-Friendly Rotterdam Structural Modules” [40]. The types of literature selected were articles and review articles, and the language of the literature was English. Globally, English is the predominant language in most academic journals. Many of the leading scholarly publications and journals are published in English, which gives the English-language literature international reach and widespread academic influence [41]. After the initial search, a total of 2844 articles were retrieved. Following a manual screening process, studies with low relevance to child-friendly city development were excluded, resulting in 966 articles for further analysis. Finally, the filtered data were exported in plain text format as Full Records and Cited References.

2.2. Statical Analysis

The exported literature was analyzed using both Excel and CiteSpace (version 6.4.1). Excel was primarily used for analyzing the changes in the number of publications across different dimensions. CiteSpace was employed to construct networks of related research.
Firstly, we identify the research growth trends in the field of child-friendly cities and analyze relevant information regarding research outputs. The evaluation includes the following aspects: (1) the proportion of publications indexed by different citation indices in the Web of Science; (2) the evolution of research areas from 2004 to 2024 and the top five research areas; (3) leading journals and those with the highest impact factors; (4) research productivity and collaboration networks of the top 10 countries; (5) the top 10 author institutions; (6) the top 20 funding agencies and their characteristics.
Secondly, a content-based analysis is conducted to understand the research framework of child-friendly cities. This section includes the following: (1) research keywords; (2) key research themes; (3) emerging research hotspots; (4) the evolution of research content and future research trends.
The detailed steps of the research are shown in Figure 1. The research and analysis primarily address the following three key issues:
  • Question 1: What are the publishing characteristics of research on child-friendly cities from 2004 to 2024 in terms of journals, countries, author institutions, and funding sources?
  • Question 2: What is the historical context, key content, and emerging research topics on child-friendly cities?
  • Question 3: What are the future research directions in child-friendly city research?
Sustainability 17 00525 g001
Figure 1. Research procedure.
Figure 1. Research procedure.
Sustainability 17 00525 g001

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Basic Picture of Child-Friendly City Studies

3.1.1. Literature Time Distribution Characteristics

The variation in the number of publications can reveal the evolving trends and characteristics within a specific research field. According to the publication trend chart (Figure 2), although there have been some fluctuations in the number of publications since 2004, the overall trend has been upward. The year 2017 marked a turning point in publication volume, with a significant increase in the number of publications. The publication trend shifted from relatively steady fluctuations to a rapid upward trajectory. After 2022, although the number of publications decreased, it remained above 100.
Based on different citation indexes from the Web of Science, research on child-friendly cities is primarily published in the SSCI, followed by the SCI. Publications in the ESCI and A&HCI are relatively few, with A&HCI showing almost no publications between 2004 and 2024, only starting to gain some momentum in 2023. In contrast, although the number of ESCI publications from 2019 to 2024 is not as high as that of SSCI and SCI, it has consistently maintained a notable share, indicating that research on child-friendly cities has not overlooked the expansion into emerging fields. At the same time, although existing studies have pointed out the increasing inclusion of SCIE and A&HCI in the SSCI, it is evident that research on child-friendly cities exhibits a certain lag within A&HCI. However, the term “lag” here specifically refers to the data scope explored in this study and should not be generalized to suggest that research on child-friendly cities is lagging in the entire field of arts and humanities research. Previous studies have revealed the imbalance in the Web of Science’s coverage across natural sciences, humanities, and arts and humanities disciplines. In particular, a significant portion of A&HCI consists of non-citable items, such as books and book reviews [42]. This further underscores the need for a more proactive exploration of research formats in the arts and humanities that are more widely applied in broader public contexts. The existing A&HCI articles primarily focus on aspects such as children’s play spaces [43] and children’s rights [44], which may represent a potential breakthrough for future research.
The literature obtained from the Web of Science indicates that research on child-friendly cities spans multiple disciplines. This is also in line with the evolving concept of child-friendly cities, as the development of it is a complex and multifaceted issue. As illustrated in the trend chart of the research areas under consideration (Figure 3), the number of research areas has displayed a fluctuating upward trend. The number of relevant fields increased from 14 in 2004 to 38 in 2024. The top five research areas with the most publications are “Environmental Sciences Ecology”, “Urban Studies”, “Public Environmental Occupational Health”, “Public Administration”, and “Psychology”. Among these, “Environmental Sciences Ecology” has consistently ranked first based on publication proportion, except for one year, while the other four fields fluctuate and rank second.

3.1.2. Publishing Journals and Institutions

A total of 966 articles were published in 200 journals, but the distribution across journals is uneven. The top 10 journals account for 25% of the total publications. Table 1 lists the top 10 journals ranked by the number of articles. The characteristics of these ten journals are as follows: First, these journals demonstrate strong interdisciplinary characteristics in their subject, with a focus on urban studies, environmental sciences, and social science. Second, overall, there are not many high-impact journals, with the highest being Science of the Total Environment. However, in terms of JIF quartiles, the majority of publications are in Q1 journals, indicating that research on child-friendly cities is predominantly published in journals that are highly ranked within their respective academic fields. Third, the publishers of these journals are predominantly concentrated in a few major publishers, particularly Elsevier. This concentration indicates that a small number of large publishers dominate the publication of journals in the field of child-friendly cities and have made substantial, long-term investments in these related disciplines, providing them with a distinct advantage.

3.1.3. Publications and Collaboration of Countries/Regions

Figure 4 illustrates the scholarly collaboration between countries and regions. The size of each circle corresponds to the volume of publications, with larger circles indicating a higher number of publications. The color gradient, ranging from blue to yellow, reflects the temporal progression, and the pink-highlighted circles represent high centrality in publication collaboration. As shown in Figure 4, the majority of countries or regions are represented by circles that are predominantly yellow or entirely yellow, indicating that their research on child-friendly cities started relatively late. Furthermore, it is evident from the figure that the United States, Australia, England, and Portugal exhibit high centrality in publication collaboration. When considered in conjunction with publication volume (Table 2), the United States, Australia, and England also occupy leading positions in the number of publications. Also, the countries and regions ranking in the top 10 by publication volume almost all have cities certified as child-friendly cities by the United Nations. These results suggest that countries and regions with high publication volumes are more comprehensively engaged in the domain of child-friendly cities, with these countries’ and regions’ involvement spanning both academic research and urban development. Scholarly research plays a vital role in supporting policies and advancing the construction of child-friendly cities. At the same time, for most countries and regions, fostering broader international cooperation is essential, as it can further promote the development of more comprehensive child-friendly city initiatives.

3.1.4. Author Institutions and Funding Agencies

The collaboration network of author institutions is depicted in Figure 5. A total of 966 articles involve 564 author institutions, including universities, research institutions, and other organizations. The collaboration network of author institutions reveals that research on child-friendly cities has formed group-based collaborative relationships. Institutions within these groups maintain stable and close connections, and institutions in the same collaborative groups are not necessarily from the same country. The top ten author institutions by publication volume are shown in Table 3, with six institutions having published more than 10 articles. Regarding the nature of the author institutions, both collaboration centrality and publication volume are largely influenced by universities and their affiliated institutions. Notably, the United States has a leading role, with seven out of the top ten author institutions in the United States.
The top 20 funding agencies by publication volume are shown in Table 4. In terms of the overall distribution of funding agency types, they include government funding agencies, international governmental organizations, and charitable foundations, with government funding agencies dominating the majority. The presence of international funding agencies reflects the internationalization of research. The globalization of research funding plays a crucial role in fostering international collaboration and the formation of a global research framework. From the perspective of individual countries and regions, China has a diversified research funding system, involving basic research, international scholarships, and university-specific funds. Additionally, China’s funding system supports international collaboration, with agencies such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the China Scholarship Council (CSC) backing international cooperative projects and overseas students. The United States holds a dominant position in research funding in the health sector. The European Research Council (ERC) and the European Union (EU) emphasize international cooperation, playing a significant role in promoting global research collaboration. However, the above conclusion must be based on a key premise: English-language publications have the most comprehensive record of funding agency information. In contrast, non-English publications in the Web of Science, particularly those written in Chinese, are more likely to include funding agency details [45]. This suggests that some funding information may be overlooked in non-English publications, potentially leading to incomplete data reporting.

3.2. Visualization of Research Hotspots in Child-Friendly Cities

3.2.1. Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis

Keywords provide a concise representation of the content of the literature. Analyzing the frequency of keywords can identify research hotspots and elucidate relationships between research topics within a specific field. Using CiteSpace software for visualization, the time span was set from January 2004 to November 2024, with a one-year time slice, resulting in a keyword co-occurrence network (Figure 6). The visualization generated 515 nodes and 1074 links, with a node density of 0.0081. Different colors in the network represent different years, and a node containing multiple colors indicates that the keyword was prominent in many years. The size of the nodes represents the frequency of the keyword. The connecting lines between nodes represent the relationships between keywords, with thicker lines indicating stronger associations. Keywords with a frequency greater than 15 are displayed as node labels in the network. The top 10 keywords by frequency are as follows: children (200), physical activity (129), health (112), city (109), built environment (78), urban planning (65), exposure (58), walking (57), urban (55), impact (50). From the network, it can be observed that the majority of the keyword nodes are predominantly yellow, indicating that most keywords have a long temporal span, and many new keywords have emerged in recent years. The pink-highlighted outer circles indicate a high centrality of the nodes. Keywords such as “children”, “city”, “walking”, “exposure”, and “adolescents” are crucial to the research, forming the core thematic structure of the field.

3.2.2. Keyword Cluster Analysis

Keyword clustering groups words with similar characteristics together. A total of 14 clusters were extracted to generate a keyword clustering map for research on child-friendly cities (Figure 7). Higher-ranked clusters contain a greater number of keywords. The results of the clustering analysis clearly reflect the interdisciplinary nature of research on child-friendly cities. As some cluster labels indicate similar themes, the research hotspots were further summarized by grouping related topics. This process ultimately summarized the following three themes:
(1)
Child-friendly urban environment and space (#0, #2, #3, #6, #8, #12). This area includes the analysis of urban spatial environment issues and how to optimize urban spaces through planning to ensure the well-being of children. Research in this area can be approached from two main perspectives: the physical built environment and the social environment. The physical built environment includes infrastructure such as buildings, roads, parks, and other facilities that are directly related to children’s daily activities. A well-designed built environment promotes children’s physical and mental health, as well as cognitive development, through high-quality spaces [22,46]. For instance, the development of green spaces and pedestrian paths in cities encourages children to engage in physical activity, which helps reduce obesity rates [47]. While building child-friendly cities, it is essential to consider various environmental factors, as well as the principles of spatial equity and the distribution of urban resources [48]. These resources include factors such as children’s education, nutrition, housing, and other key elements of daily life, all of which require comprehensive top-level design to ensure their provision [19].
(2)
Health and safety in children’s growth (#4, #9, #10). This research perspective starts from recognizing issues and covers children’s physical health, mental health, and environmental threats. In the process of urbanization, changes in urban spaces and lifestyles have led to issues such as depression, behavioral disorders, and other challenges in children’s development, which have become important topics of concern [49]. Therefore, in recent years, social forces such as schools and communities have strengthened their interventions in children’s emotional distress and stress. Improved urban infrastructure and social support systems are being established to help children cope with the challenges of growing up [50]. Additionally, various public space threats in different cultural contexts are significant concerns in urban life for children, including traffic accidents, violence, and abuse [51,52,53]. Urban planning and design need to continuously seek optimal solutions to mitigate these issues.
(3)
Child-friendly social interventions and support (#5, #7, #11, #13). Through policy guarantees and social welfare, effective support services are provided for children and their families, ensuring that children can live in urban environments conducive to their overall development. For example, many cities improve children’s quality of life and social participation through family support services, public policy development [15], and child involvement planning [54].
Sustainability 17 00525 g007
Figure 7. Keyword clustering network. (#13CPT means child protective team).
Figure 7. Keyword clustering network. (#13CPT means child protective team).
Sustainability 17 00525 g007

3.2.3. Keyword Burst and Timeline Analysis

By analyzing the keyword burst visualization, the historical evolution and shifting hotspots of research can be effectively explored. In total, 25 burst keywords in child-friendly city research are shown in Figure 8. In the visualization, the red segments of the lines represent periods with the highest burst intensity, dark green indicates the second-highest intensity, and light green corresponds to periods with lower burst intensity. From the analysis of the keyword burst map, the following can be concluded: (1) Regarding the onset of keyword bursts, “association”, “asthma”, and “adolescents” became research hotspots as early as 2004, reflecting early research focus. In contrast, “access”, “stress”, and “child-friendly cities” emerged as prominent keywords in 2022. Notably, “child-friendly cities”, which represents the comprehensive framework of the field, had not garnered significant attention prior to 2022, suggesting that earlier research approached the topic from specific aspects of child-friendly cities rather than addressing the concept as a whole. (2) From the perspective of research hotspot duration, most of the keywords have a short duration, with a rapid turnover. The keyword with the longest duration is “urban form”, which persisted for 13 years, while others, such as “impacts” and “time”, lasted only 2 years. (3) In terms of the number of keyword bursts, the highest burst occurred in 2015, with four keywords: “young people”, “life”, “built environment”, and “active travel”. In contrast, there were no keyword bursts in 2017. (4) In terms of burst intensity, the top three keywords are “public health”, “impacts”, and “urban form”, with burst intensities of 5.12, 4.8, and 4.74. (5) Many research keywords transitioned from light green to red directly, indicating a high variability of hotspots within this field, requiring researchers to pay close attention to the relevant field. For example, the keyword “stress” shifted from light green, which persisted for a long time, to red, and has remained red ever since. Finally, it is noteworthy that although only three keywords are shown in red in 2024, the remaining 22 keywords are still dark green, indicating that these keywords will still be research directions that cannot be ignored in the future.
Additionally, from the timeline changes in keywords and clusters (Figure 9), by 2024, seven out of the fourteen keyword clusters continue expanding with new keywords. However, the last four keyword clusters have ceased the growth of new keywords. This observation can serve as a reference for future research directions.

4. Trends and Prospects in Child-Friendly City Research

An analysis of the research development trajectory helps in better grasping the future directions of the field. Therefore, before presenting an outlook on research trends, the evolution of research in child-friendly cities is summarized by integrating keyword time zones (Figure 10) and the relevant literature (Table 5). The discussion on child-friendly cities can be traced back to 1989, when the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted, recognizing the protection of children’s rights as a global obligation. This redefined the perception of children as members of society and laid the foundation for the release of the CFCI in 1996. After the 2000s, the concept of “child-friendly cities” began to gain widespread promotion. In the following years, the United Nations introduced a series of guidelines aimed at promoting the development of child-friendly cities worldwide. UNICEF played a key role in guiding and facilitating the exchange of implementation practices among countries. After 2010, more standardized evaluation frameworks were introduced to assist cities in assessing their progress and identifying shortcomings [55]. Following the development of standardized frameworks for building child-friendly cities, the international exchange of experiences was promoted, and several exemplary cases gained widespread attention. At the same time, challenges posed by cultural differences in implementation became increasingly apparent. However, the concept of child-friendly cities gradually integrated with other subjects such as globalization, sustainable development, health cities, and resilient cities, which expanded the scope and content. Then, with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the content of child-friendly cities was reconsidered. Issues such as children’s mental health, disruptions in education, and other related challenges once again gained significant attention, particularly concerning children in impoverished regions [5,56]. At the same time, the growing global threats of climate change and environmental risks have driven an increasing number of cities to join the movement toward building child-friendly cities. According to the evolution and historical development in child-friendly city studies, and incorporating CiteSpace network analysis, this paper presents the following outlook on future research directions in the field:

4.1. Research Basis: The Integration of International Frameworks and Local Practices

The core objective of child-friendly city research is to address the diverse needs of children during their developmental process and translate these needs into urban spatial planning and public policies, thereby promoting sustainable urban development. The ultimate goal is to create an urban environment that fosters the holistic development of children while contributing to the sustainability and inclusivity of society. Based on the literature analysis presented earlier, it is evident that research on child-friendly cities has rarely existed in isolation. It is generally grounded in broader global issues [57,58,59] or is derived from regional studies addressing practical problems [60]. The rich content encompassed by the concept of child-friendly cities spans multiple disciplines, and in the future, it will continue to be refined across even more fields within its framework. Different research cases, based on local policies, cultural backgrounds, and developmental contexts, have contributed to the evolution of child-friendly concepts and standards in the global context.

4.2. Study Topics: Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

The construction of child-friendly cities, as a microcosm of broader urban development, reflects the evolution of urban life and society. The term “child-friendly” essentially equates to “age-friendly”, and the evolution of its research content mirrors societal responses to urban living. As urbanization progresses, research on children has gradually shifted from individual child-related issues to urban environmental concerns [61]. Built environment risks have consistently remained a key research focus in the field of child-friendly cities. This is evident from the keyword time zone analysis, where urban environment-related terms such as “exposure”, “environment”, “built environment”, “health”, and “air pollution” have been prominent in research on child-friendly cities over the past two decades. With the growing urgency of climate change and global sustainable development issues, future research on child well-being should integrate sustainability, aiming for a multi-dimensional approach that promotes the well-being of cities, environments, and children.

4.3. Research Methods: Interdisciplinary Integration and the Combination of Multiple Approaches

Innovation in research methods is a key pathway to research advancement, and efficient methods can drive progress and facilitate practical implementation. A basic review of the literature reveals that the most commonly used research methods in child-friendly city studies include field observation [62], questionnaires and interviews [63,64], and case studies. These methods, which rely on feedback from children or parents to understand needs and summarize issues, are the most direct way to approach the research subjects. However, the regional limitations of these methods are also evident. As the concept of child-friendly cities continues to expand, the range of disciplines involved in the research has broadened, along with emerging approaches such as multidimensional data collection [65,66], real-time monitoring [67], and machine learning gradually being integrated into the study of child-friendly cities. The integration of qualitative and quantitative research methods is making the child-friendly city research framework more comprehensive. The construction of child-friendly cities, like the process of children’s development, involves multiple disciplines, including sociology, psychology, environmental science, and urban planning. The intersection of diverse knowledge and methods is an inevitable trend, and interdisciplinary research will become increasingly prominent over time.

5. Conclusions

This paper focuses on child-friendly cities as its research theme. With regard to research methodology, we combine traditional bibliometric approaches with CiteSpace visual mapping to analyze the literature published in this field. Regarding the basic publication situation, there is a clear imbalance in the distribution of publications across journals, countries, and institutions, with those at the top rankings holding an absolute dominant position. As for the content of the research, through visualization mapping, we identified that the core focus of child-friendly city research is closely related to keywords such as “children”, “adolescents”, “environment”, “city”, “built environment”, “physical activity”, “health”, “air pollution”, “walking”, “urban”, and “urban planning”. The research framework of child-friendly city keywords composed of the above keywords continued from 2004 to 2024. The keyword burst map shows that the current research hotspots in this field include “access”, “stress”, and “child-friendly cities”. The entire research framework is beginning to converge toward a more comprehensive and integrated child-friendly city system. However, as we discussed earlier, the ultimate value of child-friendly cities lies in safeguarding children’s rights and fostering a more complete and sustainable living environment. Therefore, regardless of how research hotspots evolve, the focus should always return to the two main subjects: “children” and “city”. Consequently, despite the changing research trends over the past two decades, the most frequently studied keywords continue to reflect those from the early years of 2004 and 2005, carrying through to the present.
The ongoing global environmental changes and the increasingly complex urban issues are apparent to all, especially after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which further exposed many deficiencies within urban systems. The urban environment in which we live is vast and multifaceted. Research focused on the subject of “people” requires continuous innovation in both its content framework and research methodologies. As a vulnerable social group, children need more care from society, and more importantly, they need the right to be “heard”, especially marginalized groups such as impoverished or disabled children.
Returning to the publication trends mentioned earlier, the limited number of articles from a humanistic perspective is inconsistent with the concept of a “child-friendly” city. Children do not have the same avenues to voice their opinions as adults, which makes it crucial for researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to enhance societal awareness of the concept of “child-friendly”. Furthermore, in the future, research on child-friendly cities needs to continue aligning with the broader goals of sustainable urban development, seeking stronger supporting forces such as ongoing research on urban environments and ecology. In addition, it is important to encourage greater participation from social organizations and individual groups in research funding, to address the gaps in government support.
Ultimately, the construction of child-friendly cities is a process of protecting children’s rights, aiming to optimize urban spaces, environments, and policies to provide children with a safe, healthy, equitable, and inclusive environment for growth. As urbanization accelerates globally, the building of child-friendly cities should not only focus on improving the basic living conditions of children but also on ensuring their voices and rights within society. Future research must focus on how interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation can promote the practical realization of child-friendly cities, ultimately forming a more comprehensive and sustainable development model.
Finally, although we have made efforts to ensure comprehensiveness and thoroughness in data collection, we must still acknowledge some limitations in this study. Firstly, from the perspective of the database, the use of the Web of Science as the research database may lead to certain limitations due to potential biases in database coverage. Additionally, differences in subscription plans across institutions can also introduce minor biases in the research results. Secondly, considering the limitations inherent in WOS itself, we selected English-language papers for our literature analysis. While English undoubtedly dominates scientific research, neglecting the non-English literature can result in gaps in the systematic understanding of the knowledge base [68]. This is particularly relevant in the arts and humanities, where non-English papers have always played a significant role, which helps explain the relatively lower number of publications in A&HCI in the statistics of child-friendly city research output [69]. Furthermore, regional bias is another factor, as journals published in Europe, Oceania, and North America are more likely to be indexed by WoS, which is one of the factors contributing to the data limitations in this study [70]. We believe that, given the scope and nature of the current research, these limitations are reasonable. In the future, we will work to improve this aspect by incorporating the literature in additional languages and expanding the use of different databases, thereby enhancing the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Z. and H.S.; methodology, G.Z.; software, H.S.; validation, G.Z. and H.S.; formal analysis, H.S.; investigation, H.S.; resources, G.Z.; data curation, H.S.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S.; writing—review and editing, H.S.; visualization, H.S.; supervision, G.Z.; project administration, G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Patel, J.; Katapally, T.R.; Khadilkar, A.; Bhawra, J. The interplay between air pollution, built environment, and physical activity: Perceptions of children and youth in rural and urban India. Health Place 2024, 85, 103167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Taylor, M.P.; Camenzuli, D.; Kristensen, L.J.; Forbes, M.; Zahran, S. Environmental lead exposure risks associated with children’s outdoor playgrounds. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. South Florida Times. Obesity Rising in Nations Rich and Poor, Especially in Kids. Available online: https://www.sfltimes.com/health/obesity-rising-in-nations-rich-and-poor-especially-in-kids (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  4. Sandbk, M. European Policies to Promote Children’s Rights and Combat Child Poverty. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Warner, M.E.; Zhang, X. Healthy Places for Children: The Critical Role of Engagement, Common Vision, and Collaboration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Derr, V.; Tarantini, E. “Because we are all people”: Outcomes and reflections from young people’s participation in the planning and design of child-friendly public spaces. Local Environ. 2016, 21, 1534–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Witten, K.; Kearns, R.; Carroll, P. Urban inclusion as wellbeing: Exploring children’s accounts of confronting diversity on inner city streets. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 133, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bringolf-Isler, B.; de Hoogh, K.; Schindler, C.; Kayser, B.; Suggs, L.S.; Dossegger, A.; Probst-Hensch, N. Sedentary Behaviour in Swiss Children and Adolescents: Disentangling Associations with the Perceived and Objectively Measured Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. UNICEF. Strategic Note on UNICEF’s Work for Children in Urban Settings. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/documents/urban-strategic-note (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  10. Xu, M.Y.; Tim, G.; Mao, P.; Tian, T. International Certification Mechanism of “Child Friendly Cities (Communities)” and Related Practices and Theoretical Developments of European and American Cities. Urban Plan. Int. 2021, 36, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Łaszkiewicz, E.; Sikorska, D. Children’s green walk to school: An evaluation of welfare-related disparities in the visibility of greenery among children. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 110, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Laaksoharju, T.; Rappe, E.; Kaivola, T. Garden affordances for social learning, play, and for building nature–child relationship. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Veitch, J.; Carver, A.; Salmon, J.; Abbott, G.; Ball, K.; Crawford, D.; Cleland, V.; Timperio, A. What predicts children’s active transport and independent mobility in disadvantaged neighborhoods? Health Place 2017, 44, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gao, M.; Zhu, X.; Cheng, X. Safety—Premise for play: Exploring how characteristics of outdoor play spaces in urban residential areas influence children’s perceived safety. Cities 2024, 152, 105236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Villanueva, K.; Badland, H.; Kvalsvig, A.; O’Connor, M.; Christian, H.; Woolcock, G.; Giles-Corti, B.; Goldfeld, S. Can the Neighborhood Built Environment Make a Difference in Children’s Development? Building the Research Agenda to Create Evidence for Place-Based Children’s Policy. Acad. Pediatr. 2016, 16, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Scheller, D.A.; Sterr, K.; Humpe, A.; Mess, F.; Bachner, J. Physical activity through place attachment: Understanding perceptions of children and adolescents on urban places by using photovoice and walking interviews. Health Place 2024, 90, 103361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Broberg, A.; Kyttä, M.; Fagerholm, N. Child-friendly urban structures: Bullerby revisited. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Han, M.J.N.; Kim, M.J. A Critical Review of Child-Friendly Environments, Focusing on Children’s Experiential Perspectives on the Physical World for Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jansson, M.; Herbert, E.; Zalar, A.; Johansson, M. Child-Friendly Environments—What, How and by Whom? Sustainability 2022, 14, 4852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Malone, K. Children’s Rights and the Crisis of Rapid Urbanisation: Exploring the United Nations Post 2015 Sustainable Development Agenda and the Potential Role for UNICEF’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative. Int. J. Child. Rights 2015, 23, 405–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Million, A.; Schamun, K.; Fegter, S. Understanding Well-Being Through Children’s Eyes: Lessons for Shaping the Built Environment. Urban Plan. 2024, 9, 8618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vidal, D.G.; Castro Seixas, E. Children’s Green Infrastructure: Children and Their Rights to Nature and the City. Front. Sociol. 2022, 7, 804535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kinoshita, I.; Terada, M. Pattern Languages to Raise Social Capital for A Child-Friendly City. In Social Capital for a Child-Friendly City: Housing, Streets, and Parks; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2024; pp. 161–189. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hultgren, F.; Johansson, B. Including babies and toddlers: A new model of participation. Child. Geogr. 2019, 17, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Saridar Masri, S. Integrating youth in city planning: Developing a participatory tool toward a child-friendly vision of Eastern Wastani—Saida. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 897–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, X.; Tang, P.; He, Y.; Woolley, H.; Hu, X.; Yang, L.; Luo, J. The correlation between children’s outdoor activities and community space characteristics: A case study utilizing SOPARC and KDE methods in Chengdu, China. Cities 2024, 150, 105002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chu, M.; Fang, Z.; Mao, L.; Ma, H.; Lee, C.-Y.; Chiang, Y.-C. Creating A child-friendly social environment for fewer conduct problems and more prosocial behaviors among children: A LASSO regression approach. Acta Psychol. 2024, 244, 104200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Guo, D.; Shi, Y.; Chen, R. Environmental affordances and children’s needs: Insights from child-friendly community streets in China. Front. Archit. Res. 2023, 12, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Metzler, J.; Diaconu, K.; Hermosilla, S.; Kaijuka, R.; Ebulu, G.; Savage, K.; Ager, A. Short- and longer-term impacts of Child Friendly Space Interventions in Rwamwanja Refugee Settlement, Uganda. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2019, 60, 1152–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Öztürk, O.; Kocaman, R.; Kanbach, D.K. How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2024, 18, 3333–3361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harzing, A.-W.; Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 787–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Singh, P.; Piryani, R.; Singh, V.K.; Pinto, D. Revisiting subject classification in academic databases: A comparison of the classification accuracy of Web of Science, Scopus & Dimensions. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2020, 39, 2471–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. AlRyalat, S.A.S.; Malkawi, L.W.; Momani, S.M. Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases. J. Vis. Exp. 2019, 152, e58494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kumpulainen, M.; Seppänen, M. Combining Web of Science and Scopus datasets in citation-based literature study. Scientometrics 2022, 127, 5613–5631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Birkle, C.; Pendlebury, D.A.; Schnell, J.; Adams, J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Building Child Friendly Cities: A Framework for Action; UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre: Firenze, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kingston, B.; Wridt, P.; Chawla, L.; van Vliet, W.; Brink, L. Creating child friendly cities: The case of Denver, USA. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.-Munic. Eng. 2007, 160, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Woolcock, G.; Gleeson, B.; Randolph, B. Urban research and child-friendly cities: A new Australian outline. Child. Geogr. 2010, 8, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wu, Z.F.; Lei, H.X. Overview and Prospect of Child-Friendly City. In Proceedings of the Spatial Governance for High-Quality Development: Proceedings of the 2021 China Urban Planning Annual Conference (07 Urban Design), Chengdu, China, 25–27 September 2021; China Urban Planning Society, Chengdu People’s Government: Chengdu, China, 2021; pp. 254–269. [Google Scholar]
  41. Genç, B.; Bada, E. English as a World Language in Academic Writing. Read. Matrix 2010, 10, 142–151. [Google Scholar]
  42. Liu, W.; Ni, R.; Hu, G. Web of Science Core Collection’s coverage expansion: The forgotten Arts & Humanities Citation Index? Scientometrics 2024, 129, 933–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pitsikali, A.; Parnell, R.; McIntyre, L. The public value of child-friendly space: Reconceptualising the playground. Int. J. Archit. Res. 2020, 14, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Carroll, P.; Calder-Dawe, O.; Witten, K.; Asiasiga, L. A Prefigurative Politics of Play in Public Places: Children Claim Their Democratic Right to the City Through Play. Space Cult. 2019, 22, 294–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, W.; Tang, L.; Hu, G. Funding information in Web of Science: An updated overview. Scientometrics 2020, 122, 1509–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Feng, X.; Astell-Burt, T. Do greener areas promote more equitable child health? Health Place 2017, 46, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bozkurt, M. Metropolitan children’s physical fitness: The relationship between overweight and obesity prevalence, socioeconomic status, urban green space access, and physical activity. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Friedman, E.; Lee, B.R.; Rahn, D.; Lugo Martinez, B.; Mena, A. Assessing environmental injustice in Kansas City by linking paediatric asthma to local sources of pollution: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2024, 14, e080915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Houri, D.; Nam, E.W.; Choe, E.H.; Min, L.Z.; Matsumoto, K. The mental health of adolescent school children: A comparison among Japan, Korea, and China. Glob. Health Promot. 2012, 19, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Donnelly, L.; McLanahan, S.; Brooks-Gunn, J.; Garfinkel, I.; Wagner, B.G.; Jacobsen, W.C.; Gold, S.; Gaydosh, L. Cohesive Neighborhoods Where Social Expectations Are Shared May Have Positive Impact on Adolescent Mental Health. Health Aff. 2016, 35, 2083–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Yu, C.-Y. How Differences in Roadways Affect School Travel Safety. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2015, 81, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Olszowy, L.; Jaffe, P.; Dawson, M.; Straatman, A.-L.; Saxton, M. Ontario child protection workers’ views on assessing risk and planning for safety in exposure to domestic violence cases. Child Fam. Soc. Work 2021, 26, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Taylor, C.A.; Hamvas, L.; Rice, J.; Newman, D.L.; DeJong, W. Perceived Social Norms, Expectations, and Attitudes toward Corporal Punishment among an Urban Community Sample of Parents. J. Urban Health 2011, 88, 254–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. de Andrade, B.; Poplin, A.; de Sena, I.S. Minecraft as a Tool for Engaging Children in Urban Planning: A Case Study in Tirol Town, Brazil. ISPRS Int. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hong, S.A.; Lee, J.Y. A Study on the Development and Validation of the Assessment Tool for Child Friendly Cities. Korean J. Child Stud. 2013, 34, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Alderton, A.; O’Connor, M.; Badland, H.; Gunn, L.; Boulange, C.; Villanueva, K. Access to and Quality of Neighbourhood Public Open Space and Children’s Mental Health Outcomes: Evidence from Population Linked Data across Eight Australian Capital Cities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fan, J.; Zheng, B.; Liu, J.; Tian, F.; Sun, Z. Research on Child-Friendly Evaluation and Optimization Strategies for Rural Public Spaces. Buildings 2024, 14, 2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, Y.; Xu, S.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, G. Exploring the role of child-friendly communities in alleviating the turbulence of psychological reactance among educationally disadvantaged youth. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2024, 159, 107503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tabrizi, A.A.; Mousavi, S.M.; Akhtari, A.T. Exploring the dilapidated neighborhood improvement using child-friendly city principles in Tehran, Iran. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Urban Des. Plan. 2023, 176, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Oberg, C. The Child Friendly Cities Initiative-Minneapolis Model. Matern. Child Health J. 2024, 28, 990–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Anthun, K.S.; Maass, R.E.K.; Hope, S.; Espnes, G.A.; Bell, R.; Khan, M.; Lillefjell, M. Addressing Inequity: Evaluation of an Intervention to Improve Accessibility and Quality of a Green Space. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jansson, M.; Gunnarsson, A.; Mårtensson, F.; Andersson, S. Children’s perspectives on vegetation establishment: Implications for school ground greening. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Refshauge, A.D.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Cosco, N.G. Adults’ motivation for bringing their children to park playgrounds. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tobin, D.; Nadalin, E.J.; Munroe-Chandler, K.J.; Hall, C.R. Children’s active play imagery. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2013, 14, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Barksdale Boyle, E.; Deziel, N.C.; Specker, B.L.; Collingwood, S.; Weisel, C.P.; Wright, D.J.; Dellarco, M. Feasibility and informative value of environmental sample collection in the National Children’s Vanguard Study. Environ. Res. 2015, 140, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Zhang, D.; Song, K.; Zhao, D. Leveraging Multi-Source Data for the Trustworthy Evaluation of the Vibrancy of Child-Friendly Cities: A Case Study of Tianjin, China. Electronics 2024, 13, 4564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vanos, J.K.; Middel, A.; McKercher, G.R.; Kuras, E.R.; Ruddell, B.L. Hot playgrounds and children’s health: A multiscale analysis of surface temperatures in Arizona, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 146, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Amano, T.; González-Varo, J.P.; Sutherland, W.J. Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science. PLoS Biol. 2016, 14, e2000933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Liu, W. The changing role of non-English papers in scholarly communication: Evidence from Web of Science’s three journal citation indexes. Learn. Publ. 2017, 30, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Asubiaro, T.; Onaolapo, S.; Mills, D. Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage. Scientometrics 2024, 129, 1469–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 00525 g002
Figure 2. Trends in publication volume on child-friendly cities research—based on different indexes in WOS.
Figure 2. Trends in publication volume on child-friendly cities research—based on different indexes in WOS.
Sustainability 17 00525 g002
Sustainability 17 00525 g003
Figure 3. Trends in research field evolution on child-friendly cities.
Figure 3. Trends in research field evolution on child-friendly cities.
Sustainability 17 00525 g003
Sustainability 17 00525 g004
Figure 4. Country/region collaboration network.
Figure 4. Country/region collaboration network.
Sustainability 17 00525 g004
Sustainability 17 00525 g005
Figure 5. Co-occurrence network of author institutions.
Figure 5. Co-occurrence network of author institutions.
Sustainability 17 00525 g005
Sustainability 17 00525 g006
Figure 6. Keyword co-occurrence network.
Figure 6. Keyword co-occurrence network.
Sustainability 17 00525 g006
Sustainability 17 00525 g008
Figure 8. Top 25 keywords with the stronger citation bursts.
Figure 8. Top 25 keywords with the stronger citation bursts.
Sustainability 17 00525 g008
Sustainability 17 00525 g009
Figure 9. Keyword and keyword cluster timeline network.
Figure 9. Keyword and keyword cluster timeline network.
Sustainability 17 00525 g009
Sustainability 17 00525 g010
Figure 10. Keyword time zone network.
Figure 10. Keyword time zone network.
Sustainability 17 00525 g010
Table 1. Top 10 journals by publications.
Table 1. Top 10 journals by publications.
Rank by
Publications		Publication TitlePublisherCountry IF (2023)JIF Quartile (2023)JCR Subject Categories
1 (62)International Journal of Environmental ResearchSpringer International PublishingIran2.6Q3Environmental Sciences
2 (43)SustainabilityMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing InstituteSwitzerland3.3Q3Environmental Sciences, Environmental Studies, Green and Sustainable Science and Technology
3 (28)Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningUrban and Fischer Verlag GmbH and Co. KGGermany6Q1Environmental Studies, Forestry, Urban Studies
4 (20)CitiesElsevierUnited Kingdom6Q1Urban Studies
5 (20)LandMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing InstituteSwitzerland3.2Q2Environmental Studies
6 (20)Landscape and Urban PlanningElsevierNetherlands7.9Q1Ecology, Environmental Studies, Geography, Physical, Regional and Urban Planning
7 (15)Children and Youth Services ReviewElsevierUnited Kingdom2.4Q1Family Studies, Social Work
8 (15)Journal of Transport and HealthElsevierNetherlands3.2Q2Public Environmental and Occupational Health, Transportation
9 (12)Environmental ResearchAcademic Press Inc.United States7.7Q1Environment Sciences, Public Environmental and Occupational Health
10 (12)Science of the Total EnvironmentElsevierNetherlands8.2Q1Environmental Sciences
Table 2. Top 10 countries/regions by number of publications.
Table 2. Top 10 countries/regions by number of publications.
Ranked by Number of PublicationsStatus of Child-Friendly City Development 1Centrality of Cooperation
1United States (281)Country with Child-Friendly CitiesHigh
2China (148)National Government Program Implemented-
3Australia (84)-High
4England (60)Country with Child-Friendly CitiesHigh
5Canada (54)Country with Child-Friendly Cities-
6India (38)--
7Netherlands (38)Country with Child-Friendly Cities-
8Spain (35)Country with Child-Friendly Cities-
9Sweden (35)Country with Child-Friendly Cities-
10Germany (32)Country with Child-Friendly Cities-
1 Data are sourced from the official website of UNICEF.
Table 3. Top 10 author institutions.
Table 3. Top 10 author institutions.
RankInstituteCountryPublications
1University System of OhioUnited States17
2California State UniversityUnited States12
3University of CaliforniaUnited States12
4University of ColoradoUnited States12
5University of MelbourneAustralia12
6Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red (CIBER)Spain10
7Johns Hopkins UniversityUnited States9
8University of Texas SystemUnited States9
9University of TorontoCanada9
10State University of New York (SUNY)United States8
Table 4. Top 20 funding agencies.
Table 4. Top 20 funding agencies.
RankFunding AgencyCountry/RegionType
1National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)ChinaGovernment funding agency
2United States Department of Health and Human ServicesUnited StatesGovernment department
3National Institutes of Health (NIH), USAUnited StatesGovernment funding agency
4Spanish GovernmentSpainGovernment department
5UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)United KingdomGovernment agency
6European Union (EU)EuropeInternational governmental organization
7Swedish Research Council (Formas)SwedenGovernment funding agency
8Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)CanadaGovernment funding agency
9Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences and Technology (MEXT)JapanGovernment department
10Australian GovernmentAustraliaGovernment agency/Government department
11Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)United KingdomGovernment funding agency
12European Research Council (ERC)EuropeInternational governmental organization
13Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT)PortugalGovernment funding agency
14Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)JapanGovernment funding agency
15National Research Foundation of KoreaSouth KoreaGovernment funding agency
16Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)CanadaGovernment funding agency
17China Scholarship Council (CSC)ChinaGovernment funding agency
18Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (FRF-CU)ChinaGovernment funding program
19Wellcome TrustUnited KingdomCharitable foundation
20Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)BrazilGovernment funding agency
Table 5. Division of the Research Period of Child-Friendly Cities.
Table 5. Division of the Research Period of Child-Friendly Cities.
Time PeriodTime PointsMain Research FocusExample KeywordsExample Authors
2000–20102004. The United Nations’ “Child Friendly Cities: A Guide for Action” was launched, drawing global attention to the diverse developmental needs of children.Child Well-Being, Urban GovernanceBenefits, Care, Accessibility, Environmental JusticeBackett-Milburn, K. (2003)
Al-Khalaileh, E. (2004)
2007. “The Vision and Action for Child-Friendly Cities” emphasized the importance of addressing children’s needs and ensuring the sustainability and equity of children’s lives in urban environments.Diverse and Inclusive Child-Friendly Cities, Child ParticipationParticipation, Prevalence, Air Pollution, Design MethodsLeonard, C. (2009), Nordstrom, M. (2010), Pawlikowska-Piechotka, A. (2011)
2010–20202012. The “Child-Friendly Cities Framework” was released, promoting the standardization of child-friendly city development.Standardization and EvaluationChild, Family, Perception, Low IncomeLaaksoharju, T. (2012),
Broberg, A. (2013),
Lee, J. (2013)
2013. The Global Child-Friendly Cities Conference was held, leading to the widespread dissemination of the concept and practices of child-friendly cities.Comparative Analysis of International Cases, Child-Friendly Practices under Cultural DifferencesUrban Design, Challenge, Management, Particular MatterNikku, B. R. (2013)
Ramezani, S. (2013),
Peng, Z. (2018)
2015. The “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” was adopted, with child well-being included as one of its development goals.The Significance of Child-Friendly Cities for Sustainable Development, How Child Participation Promotes Sustainable Urban DevelopmentResource, Green Space, Intervention, Place, Risk FactorsWitten, K. et al. (2015), Derr, V. et al. (2016), Prakoso, S. et al. (2018),
Pei, Y. et al. (2019)
2020-2020. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, children’s health issues and well-being in the digital age became emerging topics.Child Well-Being During the Pandemic, Resilient Urban Development, Children’s Mental Health, Climate ChangeEnvironmental Equity, Neighborhoods, Stress, Public Participation, Green, ResilienceWarner, M. et al. (2020),
Alderton, A. et al. (2022),
Yin, S.C. et al. (2022), Russo, A. et al. (2023), Fang, K.L. et al. (2024)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shu, H.; Zheng, G. Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Child-Friendly Cities from the Web of Science, 2004–2024. Sustainability 2025, 17, 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020525

AMA Style

Shu H, Zheng G. Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Child-Friendly Cities from the Web of Science, 2004–2024. Sustainability. 2025; 17(2):525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020525

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shu, Huangna, and Guoquan Zheng. 2025. "Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Child-Friendly Cities from the Web of Science, 2004–2024" Sustainability 17, no. 2: 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020525

APA Style

Shu, H., & Zheng, G. (2025). Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Child-Friendly Cities from the Web of Science, 2004–2024. Sustainability, 17(2), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020525

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop