Research on Child-Friendly Evaluation and Optimization Strategies for Rural Public Spaces

Abstract

Public spaces are essential for the implementation of child-friendly principles and the development of child-friendly cities, with positive and healthy environments playing a crucial role in supporting children’s well-being and development. However, existing research on child-friendly public spaces predominantly targets economically developed urban areas with robust public service infrastructure, often neglecting rural areas with less advanced facilities. This study utilizes grounded theory and qualitative analysis to propose a child-friendly public space evaluation framework specifically for rural settings. The framework includes four primary indicators—safety, accessibility, comfort, and multifunctionality—and 19 secondary indicators, such as facility safety and plant safety. An empirical investigation was conducted in Baishoupu Town, a child-friendly pilot area within Changsha, China, which is designated as a United Nations Child-Friendly City, and the study encompassed an analysis of 11 rural villages within this area. The findings reveal that while Baishoupu Town demonstrates a relatively high level of child-friendly development, there is significant disparity among individual villages. Key determinants affecting the child-friendliness of rural public spaces include the type of rural industry, per capita income levels, and the degree of policy support. Specifically, the advancement of public service infrastructure and the tourism sector significantly influence the primary indicators. Moreover, while rural road infrastructure is positively correlated with accessibility, the presence of through traffic adversely affects safety indicators. Based on these insights, this study recommends enhancing child-friendliness in rural public spaces through strategic village planning, spatial design improvements, and ensuring child participation. This research provides valuable insights for government policy development and implementation and offers a replicable framework for child-friendly public space development in rural areas globally.

1. Introduction

The equitable and healthy development of children has emerged as a major global social issue. Since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 and the launch of the Child-Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI) by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and UN-Habitat in 1996 [1], more than 3000 cities and communities in 38 countries have been certified by the United Nations, encompassing over 30 million children [2]. The child-friendly concept aims to address the physical, psychological, social, and economic needs and rights of children in an increasingly urbanized and complex world by improving their living environments [3]. This concept has evolved into a social consensus and is increasingly recognized as a key indicator of a society’s livability, democracy, and governance. In 1992, China introduced the “Outline of China’s Child Development Plan for the 1990s”, which was followed by a series of subsequent documents, including the “China National Program for Child Development” and the “Goals and Strategies for Building Child-Friendly Cities in China”. These initiatives have resulted in the recognition of 54 Child-Friendly Cities, such as Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Changsha [4], thereby ingraining the concept of Child-Friendly Cities deeply into public consciousness.

Public spaces serve as open areas for diverse social interactions and are essential platforms for implementing child-friendly concepts and facilitating children’s activities. In his book The Image of the City, Kevin Lynch examines how children cognitively process their environment, emphasizing the critical role of informal spaces in supporting these activities [5]. Building on this foundation, scholars have conducted theoretical and practical research on different spatial typologies, such as cities [6,7], neighborhoods [8,9], and streets [10,11], focusing on child-friendly policy formulation [12,13], evaluation system development [14,15], and spatial optimization design [16,17]. Given that children aged 6 to 12 are the most active users of outdoor public spaces [18], most studies have concentrated on the spatial development needs of this age group.

Analyzing the key factors influencing children’s outdoor activities and evaluating child-friendly public spaces not only provides an objective assessment of the current state of child-friendly development but also offers a crucial basis for formulating future improvement strategies. Scholars have proposed various child-friendly evaluation frameworks for different types of public spaces, addressing multiple dimensions. At the city level, evaluation factors tend to be more comprehensive. For instance, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) in the United Kingdom identifies eight fundamental principles for developing child-friendly spaces: sense of belonging, locality, participation, sustainability, play, green space, inclusiveness, and confidence-building [19]. They further evaluate Child-Friendly Cities through six criteria: leisure and recreation, safety, educational resources, basic civil rights, housing, and health and social services [20]. Many studies have focused on evaluating child-friendliness at the community or neighborhood level. For example, some scholars have developed an evaluation framework for urban residential environments from the perspective of caregivers, considering six factors: recreational opportunities, travel comfort, travel support, service accessibility, neighborhood ambiance, and safety [21]. Other researchers have proposed child-friendly evaluation frameworks focused on environmental design, street scale, and the proximity of public facilities, considering aspects such as safety, comfort, convenience, enjoyment, and sharing [22,23,24]. Furthermore, existing studies highlight that streets and informal outdoor spaces, such as vacant lots, are the most frequently used areas for children’s activities [25]. Building on this observation, some scholars have specifically evaluated the child-friendliness of walking and cycling environments by focusing on three key aspects: safety, practicality, and enjoyment [26,27]. In terms of research methodology, the evaluation of child-friendly spaces primarily employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. These methods typically include surveys and focus group interviews with children and their caregivers to gauge satisfaction with the child-friendly features of the environment [26,28]. Analytical techniques such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Delphi method are subsequently used to construct the evaluation framework [29,30], which is then validated through empirical analysis in selected case areas.

In summary, although there has been a growing body of research on child-friendly public spaces in recent years, the majority of studies have predominantly concentrated on economically developed urban areas with well-established public service infrastructure, while rural areas have received comparatively less attention. In terms of child-friendly public space evaluation systems, due to the significant differences between rural and urban areas—such as spatial structure, industrial development, public service infrastructure, transportation environments, and neighborhood interactions—the selection and thresholds for child-friendly evaluation indicators also differ between rural and urban contexts [31]. Therefore, the existing urban-oriented child-friendly public space evaluation systems cannot be directly applied to rural areas. From the perspective of optimization strategies for child-friendly public spaces, current research primarily focuses on specific rural case studies, offering micro-level design interventions aimed at optimizing individual public space nodes within these villages. However, due to the significant differences between rural areas, the generalizability and broader applicability of these strategies remain limited. However, on a global scale, approximately 37.1% of children reside in rural areas. In China, for instance, out of 250 million children, about 100 million live in rural regions [32]. As globalization and urbanization progress, the urban–rural divide has been widening in many countries, with rural areas often lacking adequate public service infrastructure and outdoor activity spaces. This disparity is particularly pronounced in developing countries, making the need to address child-friendly development in rural areas increasingly urgent. This study builds on the aforementioned context, drawing on child behavior and child psychology theories. Employing qualitative analysis, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and other relevant methodologies, it aims to develop an evaluation framework specifically designed for assessing child-friendly public spaces in rural areas. This study conducts an empirical case analysis in Baishoupu Town, Changsha, China—a designated United Nations Child-Friendly City—to propose optimization strategies for rural child-friendly public spaces. This study provides a scientific basis for evaluating child-friendly development in rural areas, offering valuable insights for policy formulation and planning implementation. Furthermore, it presents a replicable framework for optimizing child-friendly spaces in rural areas worldwide, with particular emphasis on developing countries.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area for this research is Bairuopu Town, located in Changsha, Hunan Province, China. Changsha, the capital of Hunan Province, is situated in central China along the middle reaches of the Yangtze River. In 2022, Changsha was successfully selected as one of China’s first child-friendly cities. As part of its efforts to promote child-friendly urban development, Changsha has actively pursued an integrated urban–rural strategy, extending child-friendly initiatives to suburban towns characterized by strong ecological environments and solid industrial foundations. Bairuopu Town is among the first towns selected as a child-friendly demonstration site in Changsha.

Administratively part of Wangcheng District in Changsha, Bairuopu Town encompasses a total area of 99.70 km² and has a population of approximately 48,000. It is within a one-hour commuting radius of Changsha, which provides a significant locational advantage. The town comprises one community, Bairuopu Community, and ten villages: Longtang, Longlian, Huangnipu, Guangming, Datang, Qitianmiao, Jinshi, Shenghe, Shuyi, and Gushan. The location of Bairuopu Town is illustrated in Figure 1.

2.2. Theoretical Foundation: Child Behavior and Psychology

Studies in child behavior and psychology provide a crucial theoretical foundation for understanding and evaluating children’s behaviors and needs in public spaces. Research on child behavior examines how environmental characteristics—such as the size of spaces, layout, and the accessibility of facilities—affect children’s behavior and modes of interaction [33]. At the same time, child psychology research shows that children develop their understanding of the world through exploration and interaction, and that their cognitive and emotional development is closely tied to the physical environment they inhabit [34]. Therefore, the selection of evaluation criteria should not only address children’s basic needs for safety and functionality but also utilize methods commonly employed in these theoretical frameworks, such as observation, questionnaires, and interviews, to analyze how these spaces support children’s psychological and behavioral development.

2.3. Methodological Framework

Based on the aforementioned theoretical foundation, and in conjunction with normative documents such as the Standards for Child-Friendly Rural Development [35] and the Guidelines for Urban Child-Friendly Space Construction [36], four key dimensions were identified for evaluating child-friendly rural public spaces: safety, accessibility, comfort, and multifunctionality. These dimensions are used to assess the safety of children’s activities in rural outdoor public spaces, the ease of their mobility, the comfort of their play experiences, and the variety of activities available. Additionally, factors were selected through qualitative analysis [37], focus group discussions [26], and expert consultations [29] to form a secondary indicator system. The Delphi method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [29,30] were then applied to calculate weights, ultimately constructing an evaluation system for child-friendly rural public spaces. Finally, an empirical study was conducted in Bairuopu Town to quantitatively assess the current level of child-friendliness in rural public space development, identify underlying factors, and propose strategies for improvement. The specific research framework is illustrated in Figure 2.

2.4. Construction of Evaluation Indicators

2.4.1. Indicator Selection and Generalization

Based on grounded theory and qualitative analysis, utilizing the powerful coding functions of NVivo software 14, information from foundational data is categorized into sub-nodes. These sub-nodes are then integrated into higher-level nodes, ultimately forming a hierarchical, tree-like multi-level procedural operational flow to establish an evaluation index system [38].

Specifically, 218 relevant documents were identified through searches on Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) using the subject terms “child-friendly construction”, “spatial child-friendliness”, “rural child-friendliness”, and “child-friendly evaluation”. A total of 139 open codes were extracted, and their frequencies were calculated. Additionally, text mining and information extraction were performed, followed by word-by-word analysis, comparison, and synthesis, resulting in 48 secondary nodes (Figure 3). The indicators were then screened and refined based on the principles of scientific rigor, practicality, effectiveness, and systematicity [21] For instance, nodes specific to urban public spaces, such as “hardening rate of ground pavement”, were removed, as were those like “visual conditions” and “sense of domain”, which were vague, difficult to quantify, or overly subjective. Nodes with low frequency (fewer than three instances) in the original references were also excluded, forming a preliminary evaluation index system.

2.4.2. Indicator Screening and Revision

To enhance the scientific validity and rationality of the hierarchical indicators, the Delphi method (also known as expert consultation) was employed for the screening and refinement of evaluation factors. Currently, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Delphi method remain the most widely used approaches in determining evaluation factors, assigning weights, and scoring [30]. The Delphi method involves soliciting expert opinions on the issues to be predicted through anonymous written queries and analyzing the results using statistical methods. This approach maintains anonymity throughout the prediction process, and direct interaction among experts is avoided, thereby minimizing the potential for external interference. Specifically, 25 experts from Hunan Province were invited, including professors from five universities such as Hunan University, Central South University, and Hunan Agricultural University, senior engineers from four design institutions including the Hunan Provincial Planning and Design Institute, and experienced management personnel from various towns and villages in Changsha (

Table 1. Overview of Expert Profiles for the Delphi Method.

Total Number of Experts	By Professional Field				By Type of Institution
	Urban and Rural Planning	Landscape Architecture	Architecture	Agricultural and Forestry Economics and Management	Higher Education Institutions	Design Institutes	Administrative Units
25	10	6	6	3	12	8	5

). The process followed an iterative approach: initially soliciting expert opinions, then organizing, summarizing, and statistically analyzing the data, followed by anonymous feedback to the experts, and soliciting further opinions until consensus was reached. This methodical approach facilitated the development of a comprehensive evaluation index system for assessing child-friendliness in rural public spaces, which includes definitions, standards, and value explanations for each indicator. The final system comprises four primary indicators and nineteen secondary indicators. The final evaluation index system and its detailed explanations are provided in

Table 2. Evaluation index system of child-friendly in rural public space.

Target Layer	Primary Indicators (Primary Indicators)	Indicator Layer (Secondary Indicators)	Description of Indicators
Evaluation of the child-friendliness of rural public spaces	B1 Safety	C1 Facility Security	Outdoor equipment and facilities for children’s activities should be free of sharp edges and corners. Damaged or outdated equipment must be promptly repaired or replaced.
		C2 Plant Security	Plants within activity spaces, including flowers, fruits, and leaves, should be non-toxic, free from irritating odors, and devoid of dense or tall hazardous vegetation.
		C3 Vision Openness	There should be no tall plants or buildings obstructing the view to avoid creating dangerous blind spots.
		C4 Hazard Warning Signage	Hazard warning signage should be placed at the entrances of areas unsuitable for children’s activities, such as cliffs with falling rocks or the edges of ponds and rivers. Prohibitive signs should be installed in wooded areas to discourage children from climbing. Additionally, traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps and pedestrian crossings, should be implemented on pathways frequently used by children for their daily journeys to and from school.
		C5 Traffic Environment	The activity area should be free of large vehicle crossings, and pedestrian pathways should be smooth, without steep slopes or deep pits.
		C6 Video Surveillance	Security cameras and protective facilities should be installed in children’s activity areas to reduce parental concerns about safety and facilitate independent activities for children.
		C7 Night lighting	Rural public spaces should have barrier-free facilities to provide easy access for young children and children with disabilities.
	B2 Accessibility	C8 Ease of Route	The distance for children to walk to rural activity areas should not be too far, and the routes should be straightforward and easy to remember.
		C9 Travel Distance	Public spaces should be well-distributed and reasonably located to ensure suitable travel distances for children from different parts of rural areas, minimizing the time required for walking or cycling.
		C10 Convenient Entry	Rural public spaces should have prominent entrance markers that attract children and facilitate easy access.
	B3 Comfort	C11 Universal Access Facilities	Rural public spaces should include barrier-free facilities to ensure easy access and convenience for young children and children with disabilities.
		C12 Spatial Scale and Quality	The space should have an appropriate scale—neither too crowded nor too sparse—with adequate lighting, ventilation, and air quality. It should also offer a moderate level of enclosure and privacy.
		C13 Facility Comfort and Convenience	Facilities should be arranged to facilitate ease of use by children, with dimensions suitable for their size, and forms and colors that are visually appealing to them.
		C14 Environment Green and Comfortt	The overall environment, including color and shape, should align with children’s physiological and psychological needs. Plantings should display distinct seasonal changes, and the choice of trees, flowers, and greenery should enhance aesthetic appeal.
	B4 Multifunctionality	C15 Activity Diversity and Engagement	Provide a wide range of play facilities to accommodate diverse activity needs.
		C16 Social Interaction Function	Facilitate interactive games such as hide-and-seek and jump rope, as well as various parent–child activities, to develop children’s social skills and teamwork abilities.
		C17 Physical Fitness Function	Enable children to participate in physical activities such as jump rope, shuttlecock kicking, skateboarding, basketball, badminton, and table tennis within rural public spaces.
		C18 Science and Educational Function	Include areas such as children’s reading rooms or parent–child reading zones; rural public spaces should support activities that promote learning about traditional culture, agricultural knowledge, and other intangible cultural heritage.
		C19 Creativity and Innovation Function	The design and layout of rural activity spaces should foster children’s natural curiosity and energy, providing opportunities for exploring nature, enhancing creativity, and showcasing artistic talents.

.

2.4.3. Assignment of Indicator Weights and Consistency Tests

The differing degrees of influence exerted by various indicators on the overall evaluation system necessitate the calculation of their respective weights. To achieve this, this study employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [30] to quantify the weights of indicators at different levels. At the top of the hierarchy is the overall objective: the “Evaluation of Child-Friendliness in Rural Public Spaces.” The intermediate level comprises the “criteria level”, which includes “Safety”, “Accessibility”, “Comfort”, and “Multifunctionality”. The lowest level represents the “indicator level”. A sample pairwise comparison matrix model is provided in

Table 3. Example of A Hierarchical Judgment Matrix.

A	B1	B2	B3	…	Bn
B1	B1/B1	B1/B2	B1/B3	…	B1/Bn
B2	B2/B1	B2/B2	B2/B3	…	B2/Bn
B3	B3/B1	B3/B2	B3/B3	…	B3/Bn
…	…	…	…	…	…
Bn	Bn/B1	Bn/B2	B6/B3	…	Bn/Bn

. Using the 1–9 scale method proposed by T.L. Saaty, the relative importance of each factor within the child-friendliness evaluation indicators is assessed through pairwise comparisons, with numerical values assigned accordingly [39]. If the total number of factors at each level is n, an n×n matrix can be constructed, where B1/B2 denotes the relative importance of factor B1 compared to factor B2 (

Table 4. 1–9 scale method.

Scale aij	Definition
1	Element i is as important as element j
3	Element i is slightly more important than element j
5	Element i is significantly more important than element j
7	Element i is very much more important than element j
9	Element i is extremely more important than element j
from the bottom (lines on a page)	If element j is compared with element i, the judgement value is the inverse of the above scale

). The specific calculation process is outlined as follows:

Calculate the eigenvectors for each indicator.

$${\overline{W}}_t=\sqrt[n]{{\displaystyle \prod _{j=1}^n{\alpha }_{ij}}}$$

(1)

(${\alpha }_{ij}$ is the element of the judgement matrix, $n$ is the order of the judgement matrix, and ${\overline{W}}_t$ is the square root of the product of the elements of row $i$ of the judgement matrix).

The weights ${\overline{W}}_t$ were normalized and calculated to obtain each weight indicator.

$$W={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{W_t}}{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n\overline{W_t}}}}$$

(2)

Compute the largest characteristic root of the judgement matrix.

$${\lambda }_{\max }={\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n\frac{B_{i}W}{n{W}_t}} \left(B_i\mathrm{is}\mathrm{the}i\mathrm{th}\mathrm{row}\mathrm{vector}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{judgement}\mathrm{matrix}\right)$$

(3)

Calculate the judgement matrix consistency index ($CI$) to test its consistency.

$$CI={\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{\max }-n}{n-1}} \left(n\mathrm{is}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{dimensions}\right)$$

(4)

Taking the primary indicators as an example, the AHP method was applied to the four criteria-level indicators—Safety, Accessibility, Comfort, and Multifunctionality—by constructing a 4 × 4 judgment matrix. The geometric mean method was employed to compute the eigenvector, yielding values of (1.975, 0.914, 0.409, 0.702), with corresponding weights of 49.371%, 22.848%, 10.229%, and 17.552%, respectively. The consistency ratio (CR) of the judgment matrix was less than 0.10 [CI = (λmax − n)/(n − 1)], confirming that the reliability and validity of the results are satisfactory (

Table 5. Judgement matrix, weights, and consistency test for standard level indicators.

A	B1 Safety	B2 Accessibility	B3 Comfortability	B4 Multifunctionality	Weights
B1 Safety	1	4.077	3.454	2.333	0.4937
B2 Accessibility	0.245	1	3.625	1.333	0.2285
B3 Comfortability	0.289	0.276	1	0.600	0.1023
B4 Multifunctionality	0.429	0.750	1.667	1	0.1755
λmax = 4.201, CR = 0.075, CR < 0.1, satisfy consistency test

). Following this procedure, the same calculation method was applied to determine the weights of the secondary indicators, ultimately resulting in the establishment of the evaluation system for child-friendliness in rural public spaces (Figure 4).

3. Results

In June 2024, the research team conducted field surveys across 11 villages in Baishoupu Town, Changsha, China. According to the seventh national census [40], Baishoupu Town has a registered population of approximately 48,265, including 23,719 urban residents and 24,282 rural residents. Among these, about 1459 children aged 6–12 live in rural areas. To determine the optimal sample size for random sampling and to meet the statistical requirements for the minimum sample size, the following assumptions were made [41]: first, sampling was conducted under the assumption of an infinite population; second, a confidence level of 90% was used, with a maximum allowable absolute error (ε) of 5%; third, in the absence of known π, the maximum variance π(1 − π) = 0.25 was assumed. As a result, the required minimum sample size was calculated to be 229. For this survey, at least 20 questionnaires were distributed to each of the 11 villages in Baishoupu Town, resulting in a total of 253 questionnaires being distributed, with 238 valid responses collected and verified through statistical validation. The survey began with village committees convening residents for a briefing on the evaluation’s purpose, principles, indicator explanations, and a Q&A session. Following this, four groups were surveyed: village officials, ordinary villagers, children aged 6–12 [18], and their guardians. The survey for village officials and ordinary villagers primarily aimed to gather information about each village’s size, population, industry types, average annual income, public service facilities, rural tourism resources, and village honors. For children aged 6–12 and their guardians, the survey focused on evaluating the child-friendly development of each village based on the evaluation system. The scoring was categorized as follows: 90 and above as excellent, 80–90 as good, 70–80 as average, 60–70 as passing, and below 60 as poor. The final evaluation results are outlined below.

3.1. Overall Conclusion

Overall, the average score for child-friendly public space development in the villages of Bairuopu Town is 78.69, with notable variability among different villages. Two villages fall into the “Excellent” category (above 90 points), three into the “Good” category (80–89 points), four into the “Average” category (70–79 points), one into the “Pass” category (60–69 points), and one into the “Poor” category (below 60 points). Guangming Village achieved the highest score of 92.36, while Gushan Village had the lowest score of 57.69, indicating a generally uneven distribution (Figure 5). A closer examination of the four key sub-indicators—Safety, Accessibility, Comfort, and Multifunctionality—reveals even greater differences in child-friendly public space development across the villages. Among the 11 villages, the greatest disparity is observed in the Accessibility indicator, with a score range of 40.79 points. Longlian Village scored the highest at 94.35, while Gushan Village scored the lowest at 53.56, highlighting substantial differences in the provision of accessible and navigable spaces for children. The Safety indicator presents the second-largest disparity, with a range of 38.21 points; Guangming Village scored the highest at 91.22, whereas Gushan Village had the lowest score of 53.01. The Multifunctionality indicator shows a disparity of 26.94 points, with both Guangming and Longlian villages achieving the highest scores of 95, while Gushan Village scored the lowest at 68.06. The smallest disparity is in the Comfort indicator, with a range of 22.18 points; Guangming Village scored the highest at 93.92, and Gushan Village the lowest at 71.74.

3.2. Overview of Primary Indicators

The indicator layer factors under the four criteria layers were further analyzed with the following results:

3.2.1. Analysis of Safety Primary Indicator Results

The Safety primary indicator consists of seven secondary indicators, with score differences ranging from 20 to 60 points. These secondary indicators are ranked from highest to lowest score difference as follows: C6—Video Surveillance (60 points) > C7—Night Lighting (55 points) = C4—Hazard Warning Signage (55 points) > C2—Plant Security (35 points) = C1—Facility Security (35 points) > C5—Traffic Environment (30 points) > C3—Vision Openness (20 points). A more detailed analysis of each secondary indicator is presented below (Figure 6):

• C1—Facility Security evaluates whether outdoor equipment and facilities for children’s activities are free of sharp edges and corners and whether damaged or outdated equipment is promptly repaired or replaced [36]. This indicator generally scores high, with Longlian Village scoring the highest at 95 points and Gushan Village the lowest at 60 points.
• C2—Plant Security assesses whether plants within children’s outdoor activity spaces, including flowers, fruits, and leaves, are non-toxic, free from irritating odors, and devoid of dense or tall hazardous vegetation [35]. Relevant areas should have warning signs. This indicator scores the lowest among the safety indicators, with Guangming Village scoring the highest at 80 points and Longtang Village and Gushan Village the lowest at 45 points.
• C3—Vision Openness measures the visibility within and around village activity spaces, ensuring that no tall plants or buildings obstruct the view, thereby avoiding dangerous blind spots [35]. This indicator generally scores high with concentrated scores, with Guangming Village, Shenghe Village, and Longlian Village all scoring the highest at 90 points, and Gushan Village the lowest at 70 points.
• C4—Hazard Warning Signage primarily assesses whether warning signs are installed at the entrances to areas unsuitable for children’s activities, such as cliffs or water bodies [35], and whether traffic calming measures like speed bumps and pedestrian crossings are implemented on routes frequently used by children [26]. This indicator generally scores low, with Guangming Village scoring the highest at 95 points and Gushan Village the lowest at 40 points.
• C5—Traffic Environment evaluates whether outdoor children’s activity areas are free from large vehicle crossings and whether pedestrian pathways are smooth and free of steep slopes or deep pits [35]. This indicator generally scores high with concentrated values, with Guangming Village scoring the highest at 95 points and Gushan Village the lowest at 65 points.
• C6—Video Surveillance examines whether security cameras and protective facilities are installed in children’s activity areas to ensure safety and enable independent activities for children [36]. This indicator shows the largest score difference, with Guangming Village, Shenghe Village, and Longlian Village scoring the highest at 90 points, while Gushan Village scores the lowest at 30 points.
• C7—Night Lighting assesses the adequacy of lighting and barrier-free facilities in rural public spaces to ensure safe access for young children and children with disabilities during nighttime activities [36]. This indicator shows significant score differences, with Guangming Village, Shenghe Village, and Longlian Village scoring the highest at 95 points, and Gushan Village the lowest at 40 points.

3.2.2. Analysis of Accessibility Primary Indicator Results

The Accessibility primary indicator includes three secondary indicators, with score differences ranging from 35 to 45 points. These secondary indicators are ranked from highest to lowest score difference as follows: C9—Travel Distance (45 points) = C10—Convenient Entry (45 points) > C8—Ease of Route (35 points). A detailed analysis of each secondary indicator is provided below (Figure 7).

• C8—Ease of Route assesses whether the routes for children to walk to rural activity areas are not overly long and are straightforward and easy to remember [27]. This indicator generally has high scores, with Longlian Village achieving the highest score of 95 points, while Longtang Village and Gushan Village scored the lowest at 60 points.
• C9—Travel Distance evaluates the distribution and placement of public spaces to ensure appropriate travel distances for children from different parts of rural areas, thereby minimizing walking or cycling time [21]. This indicator also shows generally high scores, with Longlian Village scoring the highest at 95 points, and Gushan Village scoring the lowest at 50 points.
• C10—Convenient Entry measures the visibility and prominence of entrance markers in rural public spaces, which should attract children and facilitate easy access [27]. This indicator shows moderate overall scores with notable variation among villages; Guangming Village scores the highest at 95 points, while Longtang Village scores the lowest at 50 points.

3.2.3. Analysis of Comfort Primary Indicator Results

The Comfort primary indicator consists of four secondary indicators, with score differences ranging from 20 to 25 points. These secondary indicators are ranked from highest to lowest score difference as follows: C11—Universal Access Facilities (25 points) = C13—Facility Comfort and Convenience (25 points) = C14—Environment Green and Comfort (25 points) > C12—Spatial Scale and Quality (20 points). A detailed analysis of each secondary indicator is presented below (Figure 8):

• C11—Universal Access Facilities assesses whether rural public spaces are equipped with barrier-free facilities that ensure easy access and convenience for young children and children with disabilities [21]. This indicator generally shows lower scores across the villages, with Guangming Village achieving the highest score of 95 points, and Gushan Village scoring the lowest at 70 points.
• C12—Spatial Scale and Quality evaluates whether the spatial scale is appropriate, ensuring a balanced level of enclosure and privacy [21]. This indicator generally scores high, with Guangming Village at 95 points and Gushan Village at 75 points.
• C13—Facility Comfort and Convenience focuses on whether the layout of play facilities is reasonable [36]. This indicator generally shows lower scores, with Guangming Village scoring the highest at 95 points, and both Jinzhi Village and Gushan Village scoring the lowest at 70 points.
• C14—Environment Green and Comfort assesses whether the overall environment, including color and form, meets children’s physiological and psychological needs. It also considers if the selection of trees, flowers, and greenery enhances aesthetic appeal [36]. This indicator generally scores high, with Shenghe Village achieving the highest score of 95 points, and Gushan Village the lowest at 70 points.

3.2.4. Analysis of Multifunctionality Primary Indicator Results

The Multifunctionality primary indicator includes six secondary indicators, with score differences ranging from 20 to 45 points. These secondary indicators are ranked from highest to lowest score difference as follows: C19—Creativity and Innovation Function (45 points) > C17—Physical Fitness Function (35 points) = C18—Science and Educational Function (35 points) > C15—Activity Diversity and Engagement (25 points) > C16—Social Interaction Function (20 points). A detailed analysis of each secondary indicator is provided below (Figure 9):

• C15—Activity Diversity and Engagement assesses the range of play facilities available in public spaces to accommodate diverse activity needs [36]. This indicator generally exhibits high scores, with Guangming Village, Shenghe Village, and Longlian Village all scoring the highest at 95 points, while Gushan Village has the lowest score at 70 points.
• C16—Social Interaction Function evaluates whether spaces provide interactive play areas that help foster children’s social skills and teamwork abilities (22). This indicator generally exhibits high and relatively consistent scores across the villages, with Guangming Village and Longlian Village scoring the highest at 95 points, and Gushan Village the lowest at 75 points.
• C17—Physical Fitness Function measures the availability of facilities that enable children to engage in various physical activities [22]. The overall scores for this indicator are moderate, with Guangming Village and Longlian Village scoring the highest at 95 points, while Jinzhi Village and Gushan Village score the lowest at 75 points.
• C18—Science and Educational Function examines whether rural areas have spaces, such as cultural activity rooms, that support educational activities and foster learning [35]. This indicator shows the highest scores in Guangming Village, Shenghe Village, and Longlian Village, all at 95 points, whereas Gushan Village scores the lowest at 60 points.
• C19—Creativity and Innovation Function assesses whether the design and layout of rural public spaces can stimulate children’s curiosity and enhance their creativity [35]. This indicator has the lowest average score among all, with substantial variation between villages. Guangming Village and Longlian Village score the highest at 95 points, while Gushan Village scores the lowest at 50 points.

4. Discussion

4.1. Discussion and Analysis

4.1.1. Overall Analysis

Overall, compared to previous research findings [23,42,43,44], the level of child-friendly development in rural public spaces in Bairuopu Town is relatively high. This can be largely attributed to Bairuopu Town being among the first child-friendly demonstration towns in Changsha. The type of rural industry, the average income level of villagers, and the extent of policy support are positively correlated with the degree of child-friendliness in public spaces, indicating a substantial impact.

The village with the highest overall score is Guangming Village, whose pillar industry is tourism. The village is home to a national 4A-level scenic area centered around a children’s theme, as well as eco-agriculture and cultural tourism development companies. The diversity of its local industries and its robust economy—with a per capita annual income of CNY 55,600—contribute to its high score. The village’s infrastructure, especially public service facilities related to children, is comprehensive. The second highest-scoring village, Longlian Village, is primarily focused on primary industries but also hosts five metal manufacturing companies, indicating a moderately developed secondary sector and a relatively prosperous economy. Shenghe Village, ranked third, also relies mainly on primary industries. However, it benefits from its proximity to Guangming Village to the south, with some attractions of the 4A-level scenic area extending into Shenghe’s territory. Additionally, Shenghe Village has two small-scale industrial enterprises, resulting in a diversified development of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries. This contributes to relatively high overall income levels and a high degree of child-friendliness in its public spaces. In contrast, most of the other villages rely primarily on primary industries, with per capita annual incomes generally below CNY 15,000, leading to a lower level of child-friendliness in their public spaces.

This study further demonstrates a direct correlation between the child-friendliness of rural public spaces and the level of policy support [45]. Guangming Village, recognized as a “Chinese Characteristic Scenic Tourism Town” in 2015 and a “Provincial Boutique Village” in Hunan Province in 2020, achieved the highest score in child-friendliness. Longlian Village, Shenghe Village, Bairuopu Community, Qitianmiao Village, and Longtang Village have been designated as “Hunan Provincial Rural Revitalization Model Villages”, and consequently show relatively high scores. Huangnipou Village and Shuyi Village were awarded the title of “Changsha City Rural Revitalization Construction Model Villages”. In contrast, Jinzhi Village and Gushan Village, which have not received any national, provincial, or municipal honors, display the lowest levels of child-friendliness in rural public spaces.

4.1.2. Analysis of Primary Indicators

• The allocation of existing public administration and service facilities in rural areas plays a decisive role in influencing the Multifunctionality sub-indicator and has a significant impact on the Accessibility and Comfort sub-indicators. According to the “Technical Guidelines for Village Planning Standards of Hunan Province” [46], rural public administration and service facilities primarily include public administration facilities such as village committees; educational facilities such as kindergartens, primary, and secondary schools; cultural and sports facilities such as sports grounds and cultural centers; medical facilities like clinics; social welfare facilities such as elderly care centers; and commercial service facilities like farmers’ markets and convenience stores. The Multifunctionality sub-indicator in the evaluation framework primarily measures whether rural public spaces can support diverse cultural, sports, and recreational activities for children. Educational and cultural facilities within rural public management and service frameworks are closely linked to the child-friendliness of rural public spaces. In this study, Guangming Village, Shenghe Village, and Longlian Village each have both kindergartens and primary schools. As the seat of the Bairuopu Town government, Longlian Village also hosts town-level kindergartens and primary and secondary schools, resulting in very high scores for the Multifunctionality sub-indicator. Although Datang Village lacks a kindergarten, it includes one nine-year compulsory education school and one senior high school. Bairuopu Community and Shuyi Village each have one primary school. Longtang Village, while lacking both kindergartens and primary schools, has dedicated public basketball courts and cultural activity facilities, leading to a moderate score. In contrast, Huangnipou Village, Qitianmiao Village, Jinzhi Village, and Gushan Village lack kindergartens, primary schools, and other cultural and sports facilities, resulting in the lowest scores. Villages with more public service facilities generally provide more public spaces for outdoor activities for children, thereby enhancing Accessibility and improving the quality of built recreational facilities. Consequently, these villages also achieve higher scores in the Accessibility and Comfort sub-indicators within the evaluation framework.
• The presence of tertiary industries, especially child-centered cultural and tourism sectors, exerts a substantial influence on the Multifunctionality, Safety, and Accessibility sub-indicators. The highest-scoring village, Guangming Village, is recognized as a “National Characteristic Scenic Tourism Town” and features the “Guangming Grand Garden”, a national 4A-level scenic spot renowned as a family-friendly tourism destination in Changsha, attracting an annual footfall of 1.5 million visitors. It achieves the highest scores in Safety, Comfort, and Multifunctionality. Due to some parts of the scenic area being located within Shenghe Village, it ranks second in Comfort and Multifunctionality. Additionally, Shuyi Village is home to a museum and an ancient temple, while Huangnipou Village and Datang Village feature historic temples and agricultural creative parks, respectively. These villages, endowed with certain tourism resources, score relatively high in the Multifunctionality sub-indicator. In contrast, villages lacking tourism resources generally have lower scores. This analysis indicates that the types of rural industries, particularly the integration of tertiary sectors focused on children’s tourism, have a significant impact on the child-friendliness of rural public spaces.
• The transportation environment in rural areas significantly impacts the child-friendliness of public spaces. The convenience and connectivity of transportation networks are positively correlated with Accessibility, but can negatively affect Safety indicators in certain villages. Within Bai Ruo Pu Town, the east–west Changchang Expressway traverses Shenghe Village and Jinzhi Village, while the Changji Expressway runs through Shuyi Village and Longtang Village. The north–south Xuguang Expressway crosses Bairuopu Community, Qitianmiao Village, and Gushan Village, but due to the absence of entry and exit ramps within Bai Ruo Pu, their overall impact remains minimal. Jinzhou Avenue, an east–west arterial road linking Changsha and Ningxiang, passes through Qitianmiao Village, Datang Village, and Guangming Village, resulting in higher scores for these villages under the Accessibility primary indicator. The higher classification of this road, along with improved municipal infrastructure such as surveillance systems and street lighting, contributes to higher scores in safety-related sub-indicators. However, since Jinzhou Avenue is a transit route with frequent large trucks traveling at high speeds, the scores for the surrounding traffic environment indicators are generally low. Running parallel to Jinzhou Avenue is the G319 National Highway, which formerly served as the main connection between the two cities before Jinzhou Avenue’s construction. It runs east to west through Bairuopu Community, Longlian Village, and Huangnipou Village, experiencing a similar situation to those villages along Jinzhou Avenue. However, with the decline in G319′s significance post-Jinzhou Avenue opening, these differences are less marked. Additionally, the town’s internal secondary and feeder roads generally receive high scores for both Safety and Accessibility.

In conclusion, although existing research on the quantitative evaluation of child-friendly public spaces in rural areas is limited, the findings of this study support the qualitative conclusions of Qiao, S. et al. [42,43,44,47,48] and others. For example, this study demonstrates that child-friendly development in rural public spaces generally falls short compared to urban areas [23,26]. The Safety indicator in this study received the lowest score, particularly in factors such as surrounding traffic conditions, video surveillance systems, and nighttime lighting facilities. These results are consistent with Liao, Y.D’s research, which identified serious pedestrian–vehicle conflicts and inadequate nighttime lighting in rural traffic spaces [42,43,47]. The Accessibility indicator ranked second lowest, primarily due to the limited number of public spaces in rural areas, their lack of variety, and outdated facilities [44,48]. This provides quantitative support for previous studies. The following section will analyze the performance of different villages, focusing on both overall results and the four sub-indicators.

4.2. Strategic Recommendations

4.2.1. Leveraging Village Planning as a Tool for Integrated and Coordinated Planning from a Child-Friendly Perspective

The implementation and realization of child-friendly public spaces in rural areas require integrating the concept of “child-friendliness” across various levels and types of planning, including strategic planning, comprehensive urban planning, block (community) level planning, township planning, and village planning. Dedicated emphasis should be placed on plans for educational facilities that are closely associated with children’s development, such as kindergartens and primary and secondary schools. From a regional perspective, integrating multiple plans—focusing on five key dimensions: social policy, public services, rights protection, growth spaces, and development environment [36]—is essential for guiding child-friendly village development. Establishing and promoting standards and evaluation systems for child-friendly village construction is also crucial, providing a framework and reference for regions to implement child-friendly initiatives. Given that village planning serves as the statutory basis for spatial development and conservation activities, land-use regulation, issuance of construction permits, and implementation of various construction projects in rural areas [49], it is imperative to leverage village planning as a central tool, integrating the “child-friendly” concept throughout all stages, from initial research and spatial planning to ongoing management and implementation.

Establishing a Responsive Public Service Delivery System and Defining Regional Development Priorities: It is essential to establish a responsive public service delivery system tailored to the unique conditions of each village. This system should focus on how factors such as population structure and development trends affect the differentiated provision of public amenities and services. From the perspectives of child psychology and child behavior studies, planning must accommodate the diverse spatial needs of children across different age groups. At the same time, the needs of other demographics—such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, and young people—must also be integrated. A holistic approach is required to consider both spatial dimensions and temporal sequences. Standards for facility allocation should be defined based on the demographic structure and specific needs of the rural population. Consequently, the construction and adjustment of public service facilities should be adaptive, responding effectively to changing population dynamics.

4.2.2. Focus on Spatial Optimization to Create Safe, Engaging, and Highly Accessible Rural Public Spaces for Children

Introducing natural landscape elements into village planning based on the principles of accessibility, engagement, and diversity, this approach aims to optimize spatial layouts and incorporate children’s activity facilities across three levels: village-level public spaces, centralized residential area public spaces, and courtyard spaces around homes, following a differentiated spatial configuration strategy. At the village-level, public spaces primarily focus on existing educational facilities such as primary and secondary schools and kindergartens, cultural and sports facilities like village reading rooms and cultural plazas, and medical facilities such as village health clinics. Child-friendly elements are integrated according to the behavioral and psychological characteristics of different age groups. This includes installing additional outdoor activity facilities for children and using human-centered design for detailed facilities and interior decorations to create environments conducive to children’s physical and mental development and potential growth. For centralized residential area public spaces and courtyard spaces around homes, unused land, house bases, or fragmented spaces within villages can be utilized. The diverse topography of rural settings can be leveraged to cultivate children’s curiosity and adventurous spirit. Furthermore, local characteristics can be combined with farming experiences, such as grain harvesting, to strengthen agricultural science education and create field education camps that enhance children’s innovative abilities. This multi-level approach aims to incrementally improve the child-friendliness of public spaces in rural areas, promoting the complementary integration of urban and rural resources.

Optimizing the commuting routes for rural children traveling to and from school should follow the principles of safety, independence, and continuity [50]. At a broader planning level, the public transportation network can be enhanced by refining existing routes and increasing the number of transport stops, thereby offering more diverse and convenient travel options for rural children. For routes that are frequently used by heavy traffic, particularly large trucks, it is crucial to implement safety measures such as traffic lights and speed bumps to ensure children can cross roads safely and without interruption. At the same time, incorporating child-friendly design elements, such as unique street pavements and child-themed signage, can act as visual reminders for drivers and pedestrians to prioritize children’s safety. These elements collectively improve the safety, continuity, and engagement of the walking routes to and from school. Additionally, vacant spaces along these routes can be repurposed into informal play areas, allowing children to explore freely and develop their creativity and problem-solving skills. This comprehensive approach not only enhances the child-friendliness of rural public spaces but also contributes to broader efforts to create safer and more supportive environments for children in rural communities.

4.2.3. Enhancing Interaction and Popularization of Child-Friendly Rural Development through Child Participation

To promote a child-friendly approach in rural development, it is essential to establish a comprehensive action framework that emphasizes interactive and inclusive child participation. This framework should cover the entire process of rural planning and development, including preliminary needs assessment, mid-term planning and design, and post-implementation evaluation. By doing so, it provides children with structured opportunities to express their needs and become active stakeholders in the rural planning and development process. For instance, organizing activities such as “Junior Tour Guides”, “Young Planners”, and “Rural + Children” public courses can help children comprehend and appreciate the value of rural planning. During the planning and design stages, “Child Representatives” from various age groups can be selected to participate in field surveys guided by professionals across different disciplines. This participatory approach allows children to identify and articulate problems from their unique perspectives, thereby encouraging active involvement in discussions on rural public affairs. Such engagement not only fosters a deeper understanding and critical reflection on rural development but also empowers children to envision and collaboratively plan for the sustainable future of their communities.

Simultaneously, leveraging child participation as a catalyst for public engagement can effectively promote the interactive and widespread adoption of child-friendly concepts in rural areas. Children’s involvement in rural planning serves as a critical entry point for expanding public participation, facilitating a more interactive and inclusive approach to child-friendly rural development. However, due to their young age, children may face challenges such as difficulty in clearly articulating their ideas, non-linear thinking patterns, and limited attention spans. To address these challenges, parental collaboration throughout the participation process is essential. By positioning child-friendly development as a focal point, it is possible to stimulate broader public engagement, ultimately fostering the creation of an inclusive and age-friendly rural environment for all.

5. Conclusions

Grounded in qualitative analysis and drawing on theories of child behavior and psychology, this study integrates existing literature and technical standards to propose a framework for evaluating child-friendly public spaces in rural areas. The framework includes four primary indicators—Safety, Accessibility, Comfort, and Multifunctionality—and 19 secondary indicators, such as Facility Safety and Plant Safety. An empirical investigation was conducted in Baishoupu Town, a child-friendly pilot area within Changsha, China, which is designated as a United Nations Child-Friendly City, and the study encompassed an analysis of 11 rural villages within this area. The findings reveal that while Baishoupu Town demonstrates a relatively high level of child-friendly development, there is significant disparity among individual villages. The village rankings based on child-friendly scores are as follows: Guangming Village (92.36) > Longlian Village (90.63) > Shenghe Village (87.97) > Bai Ruo Pu Community (83.08) > Datang Village (80.94) > Huangnipu Village (79.36) > Qitianmiao Village (76.39) > Shuyi Village (75.67) > Longtang Village (72.18) > Jinzhi Village (69.34) > Gushan Village (57.69). Overall, there is a strong positive correlation between the type of rural industries, villagers’ per capita income, and the degree of policy support with the child-friendliness of public spaces. The availability and quality of rural public service facilities and the development of tertiary industries, such as rural tourism, have a decisive impact on the scoring of the primary indicators. Meanwhile, the enhancement of rural road infrastructure is positively correlated with accessibility; however, the presence of through traffic corridors can adversely affect safety-related indicators. Based on these insights, the study recommends enhancing child-friendliness in rural public spaces through strategic village planning, spatial design improvements, and ensuring child participation. This study establishes an evaluation system for child-friendly public spaces specifically suited for rural areas, addressing the current gap in research on child-friendly development in rural regions, and has played a significant role in promoting the creation of a positive and healthy environment for the growth of children in rural areas in the context of China’s rural revitalization [47,48,50]. The findings also offer valuable insights for government policy development and planning implementation and provide a replicable framework for the development of child-friendly public spaces in rural areas globally.

This study develops an evaluation system for assessing child-friendly public spaces in rural areas; however, several limitations remain. First, rural contexts are generally more complex compared to urban areas, and the psychological and behavioral characteristics of children vary significantly across different countries and regions. As a result, when refining the indicators and constructing the evaluation framework, it becomes challenging to accommodate the diverse spatial needs of children from different age groups and varying rural settings, thereby affecting the system’s overall applicability and universality. Second, due to constraints in manpower and time, our research was limited to surveys conducted in 11 villages within Bairuopu Town, which introduced some subjectivity in the evaluation of certain indicators. Future research should include a broader range of rural contexts and a larger sample size to further refine and optimize the evaluation methods for these indicators, thereby supporting the practical implementation of child-friendly concepts in rural areas.