Children‘s Independent Mobility: Where is Germany heading?

1. Children‘s Independent Mobility:Where is Germany heading? Speakers: Björn Frauendienst Andreas Redecker Ruhr-University Bochum Geography Department Germany

2. One False Move Thesis: statistics on road casualties are not the only indicator to benchmark the security of traffic Source: Department for Transport, 1989

3. Children‘s Independent Mobility Our understanding today • distinction between mobility and traffic • mobility:capability of a single person for spatial movement • traffic: sum of people’s realised movements from A to B (for reference see Gather et al. 2008 or Nuhn & Hesse 2006) children‘s independent mobility (CIM) degree of mobility remaining after parental restrictions apply

4. Children‘s Independent Mobility The understanding in 1990 • no clear definition of CIM • instrument to measure CIM in accordance with today's definition of mobility • six licenses used to measure restrictions in mobility • crossing main roads, • going to leisure activities alone, • coming home from school alone, • cycling on main roads, • using public transport, • being outside alone after dark

5. Children‘s Independent Mobility 1990 License to come home from school aloneamong primary school children Source: Hillman et al. 1990: 131

6. The 2010 study - background Factors implying that CIM might have dropped in Germany over the last 20 years: • general traffic studies imply a grown importance of car dependent travel • changes in the German school system (catchment areas, introduction of an optional all-day-school • less road accidents with children involved since 1990s

7. The 2010 study - targets • to reveal possible changes in children’s independent mobility at the ten schools surveyed in 1990 • to identify influencing factors that may have affected children’s independent mobility • to show a possible connection between today’s level of children’s independent mobility and the noticeable decline in road casualties

8. Methodology 2010 study • aim to re-survey the schools from 1990 • cities involved: Bochum, Köln, Witten + Wuppertal • children aged 7 to 15 have been interviewed: • classes 2 to 4 (primary school) and • classes 5 to 9 (secondary school) • identical questionnaire for all ages • linkage between parents’ and children’s questionnaire • survey was conducted simultaneously on a Monday in February

9. Content of the questionnaires Children (focused on day of survey) Parents (focused on general behaviour and statistical data) • way to school • leisure time • behaviour in traffic • fears in traffic and in the neighbourhood • licenses in traffic • reasons for licensing • questions about age of license granting • own childhood • statistical data about the household

10. Return rate • 801 pupils have been surveyed in 2010 • 579 parents sent back the questionnaires 72,3 % Source: own figure based on 1990 and 2010 survey data

11. Key results of the 2010 study • The mobility of primary school children surveyed in Germany in 2010 is much more restricted than in 1990 • This restricted mobility leads to distinct local travel patterns of children and their parents

12. License granting Source: own figure based on 1990 and 2010 survey data

13. Differences at among primary schools Source: own figure based on 1990 and 2010 survey data

14. Effects on travel patterns Source: own figure based on 1990 and 2010 survey data

15. Effects on travel patterns Source: own figure based on 1990 and 2010 survey data

16. Two main types of restricted CIM Car School (Witten) • suburban setting • high rate of car use • children driven long & short distances Escort School (Köln-Mitte) • city centre setting • high rate of parents escorting children • low level of motorised transport

17. Causes for reduced CIM (both types) • children not visiting the nearest school to their home • risen parental perception of traffic dangers • the introduction of all-day-school

18. The 2010 study – results on targets • to reveal possible changes in children’s independent mobility at the ten schools surveyed in 1990  CIM has gone down at primary schools • to identify influencing factors that may have affected children’s independent mobility  distance to school, risen fears, all-day-school • show a possible connection between today’s level of children’s independent mobility and the noticeable decline in road casualties possible connection, because…

19. Meanings for road safety Simply said: If less children are using active travel modes independently, less children can have accidents as cyclist or pedestrians Possible conclusion: It is better for children to be escorted to school because they will have less accidents and parents can spend more time with them

20. BUT !!!! • To be driven to school is at least as dangerous as walking to school • Participating in traffic is more than getting from A to B as positive results may be • more chances to physically exercise • higher spatial perception of living environment • more social interaction with peer group • only chance to practice a proper traffic behaviour (for reference see Unfallkasse NRW 2010)

21. Conclusion • The study indicates that Germany is currently heading towards a lower degree of children‘s independent mobility • If less accidents involving children are to be achieved without restricting children’s development, integrated measures need to be developed. • more reliable research on the connection between CIM and children’s development • child oriented urban planning • educational programs • cooperation between actors (parents, teachers, police, local administration and road safety organisations)