نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

با ظهور مفهوم «شهر دوستدار خانواده» در سال ۱۹۹۵، کشورهای متعددی برنامه‌ها، طرح‌ها و مطالعات گسترده‌ای را برای تحقق این رویکرد اجرا کرده‌اند. با این حال، با وجود گسترش این برنامه‌ها و پژوهش‌ها، هنوز اجماع نظری روشنی درباره تعریف، ابعاد و شاخص‌های شهر دوستدار خانواده شکل نگرفته است. بر این اساس، پژوهش حاضر با مرور نظام‌مند مطالعات منتشرشده در فاصله سال‌های ۱۹۹۵ تا ۲۰۲۵ در دو پایگاه  Scopus  و  Web of Science ، بهره‌گیری از تحلیل‌های کتاب‌سنجی با نرم‌افزار  VOSviewer و تحلیل کیفی مطالعات، روندهای پژوهشی، مفاهیم کلیدی، شاخص‌ها، شکاف‌های پژوهشی، جهت‌گیری‌های آینده و مفهوم شهر دوستدار خانواده را بررسی می‌کند. معیارهای ورود شامل مقالات مرتبط با برنامه‌ریزی شهری دوستدار خانواده بود و پس از حذف مطالعات تکراری و غربالگری دقیق، ۵۷ مقاله برای تحلیل نهایی انتخاب شد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهند که مطالعات این حوزه روندی نوسانی داشته‌اند و نقطه عطف آنها در سال ۲۰۲۰ مشاهده شده است. ایالات متحده با ۲۲ درصد از انتشارات و ۳۰۶ استناد، پیشتاز مطالعات شهر دوستدار خانواده بوده است. نتایج نشان می‌دهند که مفهوم «شهر دوستدار خانواده» دارای ابعاد فضایی (مسکن مقرون‌به‌صرفه و حمل‌ونقل ایمن)، اجتماعی (سرمایه اجتماعی و تنوع)، اقتصادی (فرصت‌های شغلی)، محیطی (ایمنی و پایداری)، حکمرانی و مشارکت (مشارکت خانواده‌ها) و زمانی (تعادل کار-زندگی) است. همچنین، تحلیل زمانی ادبیات، تحول گفتمان شهر دوستدار خانواده را از تأکید اولیه بر زیرساخت‌های کالبدی به سوی چارچوبی چندبعدی شامل پایداری و زیست‌پذیری نشان می‌دهد. تمرکز جغرافیایی بر آمریکای شمالی و اروپا و کمبود مطالعات در جنوب جهانی از جمله محدودیت‌های پژوهش‌های شهر دوستدار خانواده است. این مطالعه با یکپارچه‌سازی ادبیات، مدل مفهومی برای تبیین ابعاد شهر دوستدار خانواده و تحول آن ارائه می‌کند و می‌تواند مبنایی برای سیاست‌گذاری و برنامه‌ریزی شهری دوستدار خانواده به منظور ارتقای پایداری، فراگیری و زیست‌پذیری شهرها باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Family Friendly City (FFC); A Systematic Review and Qualitative Analysis

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mojtaba Rafieian 1
  • Nafiseh Zahed 2

1 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Highlights

This study conducts a systematic literature review and qualitative analysis to examine research on Family-Friendly Cities published between 1995 and 2025.
Bibliometric analyses identify major research trends, thematic clusters, and research gaps within the Family-Friendly City literature.
The qualitative analysis develops a framework comprising six principal dimensions of the Family-Friendly City.
Family-Friendly City planning has evolved from a primary emphasis on physical infrastructure toward broader objectives of sustainability and urban livability.
The limited body of research conducted in the Global South underscores the need for context-sensitive urban approaches that respond to local socio-spatial conditions.

 
Introduction
The rapid growth of urbanization and the increasing complexity of family life have encouraged scholars and urban planners to reconsider the relationship between urban environments and family well-being. The concept of the family-friendly city (FFC) emerged in the mid-1990s as an approach aimed at creating urban environments that support diverse family structures, improve quality of life, and strengthen social sustainability. Since its emergence, various cities have developed policies and planning strategies addressing issues such as housing affordability, public spaces, childcare services, transportation accessibility, and social inclusion.
Despite growing attention to this concept, the literature still lacks a comprehensive theoretical understanding of what constitutes a family-friendly city and how its dimensions and indicators should be defined. Existing studies have often focused on specific aspects of family life, such as family-friendly housing, child-friendly environments, workplace policies, or social services, resulting in a fragmented understanding of the concept. Moreover, previous research has mainly concentrated on developed countries, particularly in North America and Europe, while family needs and urban challenges in developing contexts remain insufficiently explored.
Therefore, this study aims to address this knowledge gap by systematically reviewing existing research on family-friendly cities and developing an integrated conceptual framework. The study seeks to answer three main questions: How has the concept of the family-friendly city evolved over time? What are the main dimensions and indicators that define this concept? And what conceptual framework can explain the characteristics of a family-friendly city?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical foundation of this study is based on the understanding that the family-friendly city is a multidimensional urban approach located at the intersection of family needs, urban planning, sustainability, and social justice. Unlike earlier approaches that primarily emphasized physical improvements, contemporary interpretations consider the city as a supportive environment for families across the life course, including children, working parents, older adults, single-parent households, and multigenerational families.
The concept draws upon broader urban theories related to sustainable development, livability, inclusive planning, and social well-being. A family-friendly city is understood as an urban environment that provides equitable access to affordable and diverse housing, safe public spaces, accessible transportation, employment opportunities, social services, and participatory governance mechanisms.
Based on the qualitative synthesis of previous studies, this research conceptualizes the family-friendly city through six interconnected dimensions: spatial, social, economic, environmental, governance and participation, and temporal dimensions. These dimensions reflect not only the physical characteristics of urban environments but also social relations, institutional arrangements, family participation, and work–life balance.
Methodology
This research adopts a systematic review and qualitative synthesis approach to examine the evolution and characteristics of family-friendly city studies. The literature search was conducted in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, covering publications from 1995 to 2025. The inclusion criteria focused on studies directly related to family-friendly urban planning and excluded studies limited to workplace family policies or non-urban family services.
Following the removal of duplicates and the application of screening criteria based on the PRISMA protocol, 57 articles were selected for final analysis. The study employed bibliometric techniques, including citation analysis and keyword co-occurrence analysis, using VOSviewer software to identify research trends, conceptual networks, and major thematic clusters.
In addition to the bibliometric analysis, a qualitative review of the selected studies was conducted. Through qualitative coding and thematic analysis, key concepts, dimensions, indicators, and conceptual relationships were identified. This combination of quantitative mapping and qualitative interpretation enabled the development of a comprehensive conceptual model of the family-friendly city.
Results and Discussion
The findings reveal that research on family-friendly cities has experienced a fluctuating growth pattern between 1997 and 2025, with a significant increase in publications after 2019 and a notable turning point around 2020. The United States represents the leading geographical context, accounting for the largest share of publications and citations, indicating a strong concentration of knowledge production in North America and Europe.
The bibliometric analysis identifies several major thematic clusters, including social and perceptual dimensions, housing and public space, urban planning and mental health, life course and diversity, sustainability and livability, urban policies and family, and urban development. These clusters demonstrate a conceptual transition from early studies focusing mainly on physical infrastructure toward broader approaches emphasizing sustainability, social inclusion, and quality of life.
The qualitative analysis indicates that the family-friendly city consists of six major dimensions. The spatial dimension emphasizes affordable housing, accessible services, safe public spaces, and sustainable transportation. The social dimension highlights social capital, community interaction, diversity, and family support networks. The economic dimension focuses on employment opportunities and economic conditions that support family stability. The environmental dimension addresses safety, sustainability, and healthy living environments. The governance and participation dimension emphasizes family involvement in decision-making processes. Finally, the temporal dimension considers work–life balance and the changing needs of families throughout different stages of life.
The findings also reveal that family-friendly planning should not be interpreted merely as the creation of attractive urban spaces for middle-class families. Some studies indicate that urban renewal and family-oriented policies may reproduce social inequalities when they overlook issues such as displacement, affordability, and spatial justice. Therefore, a truly family-friendly city requires an inclusive approach that recognizes diverse family forms and varying socio-economic conditions.
Conclusion
This study provides a comprehensive review of the evolution, theoretical foundations, and dimensions of the family-friendly city concept. By integrating bibliometric evidence with qualitative analysis, it develops an interdisciplinary framework that moves beyond fragmented interpretations and presents the family-friendly city as a multidimensional urban planning approach.
The results demonstrate that the concept has evolved from a narrow focus on physical facilities and housing toward a broader framework integrating sustainability, livability, inclusion, governance, and social justice. The proposed framework highlights that creating family-friendly cities requires coordinated attention to spatial structures, social relationships, economic opportunities, environmental quality, participatory governance, and the temporal needs of families.
However, the dominance of studies from North America and Europe and the limited attention given to cities in the Global South remain important research gaps. Future studies should investigate how cultural, economic, and institutional differences influence the implementation of family-friendly urban policies across diverse urban contexts. Overall, the family-friendly city approach provides a valuable conceptual foundation for developing more inclusive, sustainable, and livable urban environments that support families across different stages of life.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Family-friendly city
  • systematic review
  • bibliometric analysis
  • qualitative analysis
  • urban planning
  • VOSviewer
 
Alston, G. (2022). What Makes a City Friendly for Young Families? A Best Practice Framework for New Zealand.
Benckendorff, P., & Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of tourism research, 43, 121-149.
Bende, A. P. (2023). Key Characteristics Of Family-Friendly Cities: A Review. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 18(1), 74-84.
Bristow, R. S., & Jenkins, I. S. (2020). Geography of fear: fright tourism in urban revitalization. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 12(2), 262-275.
Brown, J. (2020). Family-Friendly Study and Research Spaces: Implementing Inclusive Design in Academic Law Libraries. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 39(4), 253-282.
Brydon, A. (2014). Families in the City University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning Location.
Calvert, B. (2014). Improving Urban Living Options for Families: A Comprehensive Analysis and Recommendation On Making Cities Family Friendly.
Chen, X., Chen, J., Wu, , Xie, Y., & Li, J. (2016). Mapping the research trends by co-word analysis based on keywords from funded project. Procedia computer science, 91, 547-555.
Cushing, D. F. (2016). Youth Master Plans as Potential Roadmaps to Creating Child- and Youth-friendly Cities. Planning Practice & Research, 31(2), 154-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1110472
Drianda, R. P. (2018). Exploring the notion of the family friendly city. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
Franck, L. S., & Callery, P. (2004). Re‐thinking family‐centred care across the continuum of children's healthcare. Child: care, health and development, 30(3), 265-277.
Gill, T. (2021). Urban playground: How child-friendly planning and design can save cities. Riba Publishing.
Gür, M. (2019). Inversion of urban transformation approach in Turkey into family-friendly transformation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34(3), 735-767.
Gür, M. (2020). Family-Friendly Planning as a Symbiotic Policy in Sustainability, Livability, and Quality of Life Interaction. In M. Özyavuz (Ed.), Theory and practice in sustainable planning and design. Peter Lang Verlag. https://doi.org/10.3726/b17335
Hallman, B. C., & Benbow, S. M. P. (2007). Family leisure, family photography and zoos: Exploring the emotional geographies of families. Social & Cultural Geography, 8(6), 871-888.
Hashim, S. F., Othman, R. N. R., Abdullah, Y. A., & Salleh, M. Z. M. (2023). KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FAMILY-FRIENDLY NEIGHBOURHOOD THROUGH PLS-SEM MODEL ASSESSMENT. CASE STUDY: SS4, PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR, MALAYSIA. Planning Malaysia, 21.
Hashim, S. F., Othman, R. N. R., Hashim, H., & Nasrudin, N. a. (2020). Family-friendly Neighborhood in the Malaysian Perspective: A Review of Literature. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(2), 1-7.
Israel, E., & Warner, M. (2008). Planning for family friendly communities. Pas Memo.
Karsten, L., Kamphuis, A., & Remeijnse, C. (2015). ‘Time-out’with the family: the shaping of family leisure in the new urban consumption spaces of cafes, bars and restaurants. Leisure Studies, 34(2), 166-181.
Kauffmann, T. (2024). The family-friendly city: how to create more inclusive urban environments?
Keatinge, B., & Martin, D. G. (2016). A ‘Bedford Falls’ kind of place: Neighbourhood branding and commercial revitalisation in processes of gentrification in Toronto, Ontario. Urban studies, 53(5), 867-883.
Krishnamurthy, S. (2019). Reclaiming spaces: Child inclusive urban design. Cities & Health, 3(1-2), 86-98.
Krishnamurthy, S., Steenhuis, C., Reijnders, D., & Stav, T. (2018). Child-friendly urban design: observations on public space from Eindhoven (NL) and Jerusalem (IL).
Lamb, D. (2016). Closing the gap in family leisure provision: giving leisure facility managers the opportunity to reflect on what they provide for families. Managing Sport and Leisure, 21(1), 44-60.
Liang, D., De Jong, M., Schraven, D., & Wang, L. (2022). Mapping key features and dimensions of the inclusive city: A systematic bibliometric analysis and literature study. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(1), 60-79.
Lilius, J. (2017). Urban space in the everyday lives of mothers and fathers on family leave in Helsinki. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(1), 104-118.
Lilius, J., & Lilius, J. (2019). Urban Parents and the Changing Consumption Landscapes in Helsinki. Reclaiming Cities as Spaces of Middle Class Parenthood, 87-110.
Liu, C., Li, W., Xu, J., Zhou, H., Li, C., & Wang, W. (2022). Global trends and characteristics of ecological security research in the early 21st century: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Ecological Indicators, 137, 108734.
Loewus, S. E. (2008). Downtown living: for families?: the Vancouver, BC urban livability experience and lessons for other cities Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
Lugosi, P., Golubovskaya, M., Robinson, R. N., Quinton, S., & Konz, J. (2020). Creating family-friendly pub experiences: A composite data study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102690.
Narong, D. K., & Hallinger, P. (2023). A keyword co-occurrence analysis of research on service learning: Conceptual foci and emerging research trends. Education Sciences, 13(4), 339.
Pospěch, P. (2017). Urban or family-friendly? The presentation of Czech shopping centers as family-friendly spaces. Space and Culture, 20(1), 68-80.
Rukus, J., & Warner, M. E. (2013). Crime rates and collective efficacy: The role of family friendly planning. Cities, 31, 37-46.
Santo, C. A., Ferguson, N., & Trippel, A. (2010). Engaging urban youth through technology: The youth neighborhood mapping initiative. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 30(1), 52-65.
Sharifi, A., Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R., Allam, Z., & Asadzadeh, A. (2023). Progress and prospects in planning: A bibliometric review of literature in Urban Studies and Regional and Urban Planning, 1956–2022. Progress in Planning, 173, 100740.
Silverman, R. M., Taylor Jr, H. L., Yin, L., Miller, C., & Buggs, P. (2019). There goes our family friendly neighborhood: Residents’ perceptions of institutionally driven inner-city revitalization in Buffalo, NY. Journal of Community Practice, 27(2), 168-187.
Singh, N. N., Curtis, W. J., Wechsler, H. A., Ellis, C. R., & Cohen, R. (1997). Family friendliness of community-based services for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders and their families: An observational study. Journal of emotional and behavioral disorders, 5(2), 82-92.
Singh, N. N., Wechsler, H. A., & Curtis, W. J. (2000). Family friendliness of inpatient services for children and adolescents with EBD and their families: Observational study of the treatment team process. Journal of emotional and behavioral disorders, 8(1), 19-26.
Sweet, S., Swisher, R., & Moen, P. (2005). Selecting and Assessing the Family‐Friendly Community: Adaptive Strategies of Middle‐Class, Dual‐Earner Couples. Family relations, 54(5), 596-606.
Swisher, R., Sweet, S., & Moen, P. (2004). The family‐friendly community and its life course fit for dual‐earner couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 281-292.
Tatnell, A. (2019). The Family Friendly Home: A higher density adaptive reuse strategy for Wellington Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington].
Van Den Berg, M. (2013). City children and genderfied neighbourhoods: the new generation as urban regeneration strategy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 523-536.
Wang, L. (2022). Kids experimenting with the city: An approach to design family friendly cities Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.
Warner, M. E., & Rukus, J. (2013a). Planners’ role in creating family-friendly communities: Action, participation and resistance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(5), 627-644.
Warner, M. E., & Rukus, J. (2013b). Planning for Family Friendly Communities: Motivators, Barriers and Benefits.
Warner, M. E., & Zhang, X. (2022). Planning communities for all ages. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 42(4), 554-567.
Yang, M., Cho, T. Y., Liu, X., & Dai, Y. (2023). Research status and development direction of Child-Friendly Cities: a bibliometric analysis based on VOSviewer. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1-10.