"No Kids" Areas: Is This a Form of Discrimination That Undermines Social Cohesion?
Since the 2000s, there has been a growing trend of “no kids” vacations, tourist attractions, and restaurants, a development that has raised concerns among public authorities. What does this phenomenon of generational segregation say about our ability to function as a society? How is the role of children in public spaces changing?
Sylvain Wagnon, University of Montpellier
Over the past decade or so,“no kids”initiatives have been popping up: restaurants, hotels, airplanes, and festive events discourage or even prohibit children from attending. Although still a niche phenomenon in France, it is growing rapidly there.
On May 27, 2025, Sarah El Haïry, High Commissioner for Children, met with tourism federations to express her disapproval of this trend toward exclusion. On that occasion, she announced the possibility of a child-centered charter that would make such segregation illegal. This political awareness is not new. In April 2024, Socialist Senator Laurence Rossignol had introduced a bill aimed at “recognizing minority status as a factor in discrimination in order to promote a society that is open to children.”
How can we define this phenomenon of generational segregation? In what ways does the question of the place accorded to children in public spaces reveal our collective ability to function as a society?
A commercial for an "adults-only" venue
The “adults-only”trend originated in the international beach tourism sector and gained momentum in the 2000s in Mediterranean Europe. By 2023, nearly 1,600 hotels worldwide were reportedly classified as“adult-only,” twice as many as in 2016. These establishments aim to exclude children from certain areas—or even from the entire property—as part of marketing strategies targeting adults without children or whose children are now grown.
The concept now extends beyond the hotel industry: it also applies to restaurants, cruises, vacation rentals, and even certain amusement parks. The reasoning is always the same: a growing demand from adults seeking peace and quiet, who are bothered by children’s crying, noise, or behavior they find disruptive.
The issue at hand here is that of children’s fundamental rights in society. As early as 1959, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, affirmed the need to protect children. This principle was reinforced by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989, which specifies, notably in Article 2, every child’s right to non-discrimination, and in Article 31, the right to participate fully in cultural, artistic, recreational, and leisure activities.
From this perspective, any systematic exclusion of children from certain public spaces runs counter to these international commitments and undermines their full integration into society. In this regard, researcher Zoe Moody emphasizes the importance of viewing children not only as individuals in need of protection, but also as full-fledged social actors with rights, capable of participating in social life and having their voices heard in the public sphere.
The work of child psychiatrist Laelia Benoit introduces the concept of“infantism”—discrimination against children—which leads to their exclusion from certain spaces or to a refusal to recognize them as full-fledged legal persons.
"Childish and embarrassing": Toward Everyday Discrimination
The status of children in our society continues to be marked by a form of everyday discrimination that is often taken for granted and rarely questioned.
This discrimination is reflected, in particular, in the persistence and legitimization of certain forms of so-called “ordinary” educational violence, despite the entry into force of the law of July 10, 2019, which explicitly prohibits all forms of educational violence. These practices, sometimes tolerated in the name of tradition or parental authority, help perpetuate the idea that children must be controlled and disciplined, rather than listened to and respected.
Furthermore, positive education is regularly the target of criticism—often fueled by arguments that are more media-driven than scientific—which portray it as lax or ineffective. This skepticism toward educational methods that respect children’s rights reveals a persistent difficulty in recognizing children as full-fledged legal subjects.
A child is fully accepted only if he or she remains discreet, docile, and almost invisible, which profoundly limits his or her freedom of expression and existence in the public sphere,“a realm of freedom that is shrinking for children.” On February 19, 2024, the daily newspaper Libération ran the front-page headline“Me, a Kid, and a Nuisance,” analyzing the increasingly accepted exclusion of children since the 1990s. Public spaces have gradually adapted to the needs of cars, relegating children to secure, designated areas—such as playgrounds or schoolyards—and limiting their freedom of movement in a fragmented city.
Monday through Friday and on Sundays, get free analysis and insights from our experts for a fresh perspective on current events. Subscribe today!
It has been clear for several decades that children are becoming less present in public spaces. Clément Rivière’s research has highlighted this trend of children retreating indoors—a trend that also perpetuates gender inequality in the face of an outside world perceived as dangerous.
In October 2024, the High Council for Family, Children, and the Elderly (HCFEA) posed the question: What role do children play in public spaces and nature? The findings were alarming: more than 37% of 11- to 17-year-olds lead a highly sedentary lifestyle. Examining children’s place in the city therefore means addressing a genuine public health issue, as well as one of citizenship and autonomy.
At a child's eye level
Another movement—the “child-friendly cities” initiative—is gaining momentum in many local governments. This approach aims to rethink the city by taking into account children’s needs, rights, and participation, so that they can reclaim urban spaces and fully exercise their citizenship there.
The concept began to take shape in France and Europe in the 2010s, drawing inspiration from pioneering initiatives carried out in the 1990s—notably in Fano, on the Adriatic coast of Italy—by sociologist Francesco Tonucci. This trend is not a direct reaction tothe “no kids” phenomenon, but rather responds more broadly to a growing awareness of the negative effects of urbanization, car-centric urban planning, and the decline in children’s autonomy in the city.
In France, the first “child-friendly” charters—in the Lille metropolitan area and Montpellier —are based on the idea that children, like all other residents of a given area, have the right to reclaim public spaces, and that their participation should help reshape the city.
This issue is attracting growing interest in local public policy. The movement is gaining momentum: many municipalities, such as Tours, Nantes, Rennes, Strasbourg, Lyon, Marseille, and Paris, are engaging in participatory initiatives that involve children in discussions about urban planning.
Recognizing the importance of children’s place in the city is reflected in a variety of initiatives, such as the creation of pedestrianized or traffic-calmed school zones near schools to make daily commutes safer, and the development of play trails, accessible green spaces, and adventure playgrounds. It also involves adapting street furniture (child-height benches, drinking fountains, and age-appropriate signage) as well as redesigning public squares to encourage intergenerational interaction and free play.
Between the rise of“no kids”spaces and the development of inclusive urban policies for children, our society oscillates between two visions of living together. The first, centered on exclusion and individualized comfort, reveals a discomfort with the diverse ways in which public space is used. The second, which is inclusive and participatory, suggests that thinking for and with children enables us to live together more harmoniously.
The challenge is therefore twofold: to recognize children as social and political actors, and to question the mechanisms of exclusion that weaken intergenerational bonds. For a society that is intolerant of its children may be a society that struggles to envision its future.
Sylvain Wagnon, Full Professor of Education, School of Education, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.