CSIS Discussion Paper No. 120

Associations between children’s outdoor activities, parental restrictions, andrelated factors: An empirical study in a Japanese city

April 2013

Mamoru AMEMIYA *Corresponding Author
5-1-5, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba, 277-8568, Japan
Center for Spatial Information Science, The University of Tokyo
amemiya@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Tomoko Doi HATA
3-25-40 Sakurajyosui, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 156-8550, JapanThe Institute of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University
tomokodh@koshigaya.bunkyo.ac.jp
George KIKUCHI
2576 E San Ramon, MS/ST104, Fresno CA 93740-8029
Department of Criminology, California State University, Fresno
gkikuchi@csufresno.edu

Abstract
This study examines the relationship between parental restrictions andchildren’s outdoor activities and identifies the factors that influence these restrictions. A
questionnaire survey of 464 children and 359 parents in an elementary school in
Tsukuba City, Japan, revealed that parental restrictions could make children’s outdoor
activities more structured and supervised. Moreover, strict parental restrictions canchange the nature of children’s outdoor activities from playing with other children to
playing with the accompaniment of adults, and can change their location from public
open spaces to private territorial spaces. The results also show that the degree ofparental restriction is affected by perceived crime danger at children’s playgrounds,social relationships with neighbors, and children’s demographic characteristics. Basedon these results, this study examines the role of urban planning in the improvement ofchildren’s outdoor activities.
Keywords:
Children, Outdoor activity, Independent mobility, Parental restriction, Fear, Crime1. Introduction
Physical activity is important not only for children’s physical development but
also for their mental development (Biddle et al., 2004; Boreham and Riddoch, 2001;
Ekelund et al., 2004; Page et al., 2005). As mentioned in numerous studies, outdoor,
unstructured, unsupervised physical activities and active free play are important for thedevelopment of children’s autonomy, environmental cognition, and social skills(Burdette and Whitaker, 2005; Fjortoft and Sageie, 2000; Hart, 1979; Moore, 1986;
Prezza et al., 2001; Rissotto and Tonucci, 2002). Such activities are also important for
one’s physical and mental health after one has reached maturity, as there is someevidence supporting the finding that physical and mental development in childhood has
a long-lasting effect on physical and mental health in adulthood (Prezza and Pacilli,
2007; Sallis et al., 1992).
In recent years, however, children’s activities are reported to be decreasing inmany developed countries, including the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands,
Finland, the United States, and Australia (Hillman et al., 1990; Horelli, 2001; Karsten,
2005; Kytta, 2004; Malone, 2007; Prezza and Pacilli, 2007). For example, in the United
Kingdom, the proportion of 10- to 11year-olds who generally walked to school without
being accompanied by their parents dropped considerably from 94% in 1970 to 54% in
1990 (Hillman et al., 1990) and to 47% in 1998 (O’Brien et al., 2000). This decrease in
the independent mobility of children, which results from tight parental restrictions, is
one of the biggest reasons for the decrease in their physical activities (Hillman, 2006;
Valentine and McKendrick, 1997). Indeed, it has been empirically shown that children
with tight parental restrictions spend less time playing outside than other children(Mackett et al., 2007; Page et al., 2010; Wen et al., 2009). Children whose activities arestrictly restricted by their parents are sometimes referred to as “bubble wrapped kids”(Malone, 2007). Although appropriate parental restrictions can make children safe, thecurrent academic discussion in developed countries regards parental restriction as
overreaction to actual risk and as having a harmful effect on the sound development ofchildren (Gill, 2007).
Why do parents “bubble wrap” their children? In summarizing previous
studies, the factors that influence parental restrictions can be divided into three
categories. The first factor is the demographic characteristics of the children. Parental
restriction tends to be most strict when children are female, young, or members of an
ethnic minority (Blakely, 1994; O’Brien et al., 2000; Prezza et al., 2001). The second
factor is the physical and social environment of neighborhoods. Parents living inurbanized, playground-less, dangerous, or economically disadvantaged areas tend toconstrain their children strictly (O’Brien et al., 2000; Prezza et al., 2001; Prezza et al.,2005). The third is relationships between parents and neighborhoods. Parental
restriction tends to tighten when parents perceive danger, especially from traffic or
crime, or perceive a lack of “sense of community” and neighborhood relations (Carver
et al., 2008; Carver et al., 2010; Prezza et al., 2001; Prezza et al., 2005; Valentine and
McKendrick, 1997; Veitch et al., 2006). That is, parents tend to restrict children’s
outdoor activities when they perceive a high risk of their children becoming victims ofcrimes and traffic accidents, due to the vulnerability of children, the existence of danger,
and the lack of help from neighborhood residents when dangerous incidents occur.
Japan is known for its safeness against crimes and traffic accidents. Indeed, thevictimization rate of ten conventional crime types in Japan is the second lowest of theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (Van Dijk
et al., 2008). Japan also has one of the lowest mortality rates associated with traffic
accidents of any developed country in the world (International Road Federation, 2010).
Owing to this safe environment, most children in Japan can still walk to and fromschool without their parents’ accompaniment. Recently, however, rapidly rising parental
fear, especially regarding crime, has constrained children’s independent behavior.
According to a recent public opinion survey, 74% of Japanese parents “often” or“sometimes” fear the victimization of their children (Cabinet Office, 2006). Althoughno public opinion survey has focused on parental fear of children being in traffic
accidents, one survey of 1,875 parents conducted by the National Research Institute of
Police Science in Japan shows that the number of parents who fear child victimizationin traffic accidents is as high as the number of parents who fear child victimization from
crime (National Research Institute of Police Science, 2008). “Bubble wrapped kids”
may therefore be born even in Japan because of heightened parental fear for children.
Urban planning can help solve social problems through improving social andphysical environments. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to reveal the mechanisms
or structures of social problems based on empirical data. Thus, it is also necessary to
identify the associations between children’s outdoor activities, parental restrictions, andrelated factors.
Considerable qualitative and quantitative studies have been conducted to
identify the factors that shape parental restrictions, as reviewed above, and to examine
the effects of parental restrictions on children’s outdoor activities. However, there aresome limitations to these existing studies. Firstly, the majority of previous studies have
surveyed either children or parents only. Parental restrictions perceived by children are
not always equal to actual parental restrictions. Similarly, children’s outdoor activities

as perceived by parents may only be partial. It is necessary to survey both children andparents in order to identify the true relationship between children’s outdoor activities
and parental restrictions. Secondly, few studies associate children’s outdoor activities
and parental restrictions with actual physical space. The spatial relationships between
children’s outdoor activities and parental restrictions are unclear because most existingstudies have been based on normal questionnaire surveys. It is therefore necessary toreveal the specific places in which children’s outdoor activities are blocked by parental
restrictions in order to constructively discuss the improvement of playgrounds from the
aspect of spatial planning. Thirdly, few studies comprehensively discuss the association
between children’s outdoor activities, parental restrictions, and other related factors,
although some hypotheses can be developed by combining separate studies. Because
various factors play a role in shaping parental restrictions and because parental
restrictions on children’s activities can ultimately have significant consequences for thesound development of children, it is important to comprehensively investigate therelationships between children’s outdoor activities, parental restrictions, and related
factors.
Finally, most previous studies of children’s independent mobility have been
conducted in Western countries. In particular, few such studies have been conducted in
Asian countries (Lin and Chang, 2010). It is important to accumulate studies in othercountries for the overall body of knowledge in urban planning, since the relationshipbetween children’s activities and parental restrictions can reflect diverse culturalcontexts. Therefore, the present study was conducted in Japan with the goal of
overcoming the difficulties of the previous studies.
The purpose of this study was to identify the associations between children’s
outdoor activities, parental restrictions, and related factors in Japan from cognitive andspatial viewpoints, using questionnaire surveys containing maps that were conductedwith both children and parents. The study aimed to answer the following researchquestions:
1) How does parental restriction affect children’s outdoor activities in Japan?
2) By what factors is parental restriction shaped?

2. Methods
2.1 Study area
The study was conducted at an elementary school located in Tsukuba City,
Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. Tsukuba City is located about 50 km northeast of Tokyo, andis one of several suburban cities around metropolitan Tokyo. Tsukuba City has built a
new railway system and has been rapidly urbanizing. Due to its increasing populationand changing traditional community relationships, parental fear has been rising andchildren’s social and physical environments have changed. Thus, Tsukuba City is an
ideal study site in which to examine the effects of urbanization on parental restrictions
and children’s outdoor activities.
The school in which the study was conducted is located in a rural area, but
includes two newly developed residential areas (Fig. 1). About 72% of the children who
attend the school live in these two residential areas and the population densities of theseareas are higher than those of other areas are. The school district includes several
shrines (jinja) and coppices (satoyama) where children usually play. Additionally, four
block parks and two neighborhood parks are located in the two residential areas (Fig. 1).
It is difficult for adults to supervise their children in many places because about 60.8%of the land use of the school district consists of agricultural and wooded areas. Due tothese physical characteristics, parental fear about children walking to and from school ishigh, even though serious crimes against children have not actually occurred in the area.
In order to relieve parental fear, teachers accompany children when they go home fromschool on weekdays.

Legends
SchoolBuildings
Agricultural areas
Wooded areas
Parks
Other public areas
Roads

Figure 1. Map of the study area

2.2 Procedure
A questionnaire survey was conducted at the elementary school in 2009. Prior
to the study, the objective of the survey was explained to the educational committee of
Tsukuba City, the director of the school, and all parents of children in the school. The
subjects of the study were all of the schoolchildren aged 6 to 12 years (n = 540) andtheir parents (n = 400). The questionnaire consisted of two separate booklets. One wasdesigned to be answered by both children and parents, while the other was designed forparents only. Both questionnaires were assigned household identification numbers andmerged for data analysis. Children were asked to answer with their parents’ help when it
was difficult to understand questions. Additionally, a map of the school district was
attached to the questionnaire in order to directly identify answers to some questions.
Of the 540 questionnaires distributed to the children, 464 were returned. Of the
400 questionnaires distributed to the parents, 359 were returned (the response rates were
85.9% and 89.8%, respectively). A more detailed profile of respondents is shown in
Table 1.

Table 1. Profiles of respondentsChildren (N = 464)
GenderBoy
Girl
School Year
1st (6–7 years old)
2nd (7–8 years old)
3rd (8–9 years old)
4th (9–10 years old)
5th (10–11 years old)
6th (11–12 years old)
Parents (N = 359)
GenderMale
FemaleAverage age
Average length of residence(yrs)
Residential area
Newly developed area
Other area
Household income per year
Less than 3 million yen
3–6 million yen
6–9 million yen
More than 9 million yen
Car ownershipHouse type
Private owned single
family house

234 (51.0%)225 (49.0%)
68 (14.7%)
82 (17.7%)
96 (20.7%)
81 (17.5%)
72 (15.5%)
65 (14.0%)

34 (10.5%)290 (89.5%)
38.06(SD = 4.34)
9.61(SD = 10.67)
234 (72.1%)
88 (27.3%)
22 (8.4%)
84 (31.9%)
101 (38.4%)
56 (21.3%)
327 (97.9%)

290 (87.1%)

Rented single familyhouse

13 (3.9%)

Rented apartment house

30 (9.0%)*There are missing values in each category.

2.3 Measurements
Children were asked to answer questions about their outdoor activities andparents were asked to answer questions about the extent of their restrictions on theirchildren’s outdoor activities. Most questions were answered by selecting correspondingnumbers on scales, while some questions required that answers be made using an
attached map. Variables in the data and their descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Descriptive statistical values of variables
Variables/Subscale
nameContent

Children's outdoor activities
Types of
Playing tag or hide-andactivities
seek
experienced Playing ball games
by children Playing with playgroundequipment
Playing with sand box
Gathering natural plants or
climbing trees
Catching insects
Playing with handheld gamemachines (outdoors)
Exploring unknown places
Playing with trading cards(outdoors)
Number of types of activities
Playmates
Friends of the same age
Brothers and sisters
Friends in lower classes
Friends in upper classes
Parents
Grandparents
Number of playmates
Playgrounds Their houses (outdoors)
Friends' houses (outdoors)
Parks
Roads
Vacant lots
Children's recreational
facilities (outdoors)
The schoolyard after school
Stores
Coppices
Shrines and temples
Number of playgrounds
Locations of playgrounds

Response
format for % of Y Min Max Mean SD
choices
Y/N

90.9%
86.6%
81.5%
74.4%
-

72.8%
62.7%
45.7%
45.0%
37.5%
Y/N

Y/N

0
81.9%
53.9%
32.1%
31.7%
18.5%
10.8%
0
90.7%
83.2%
79.1%
53.2%
30.4%

9

2.1

2.29

1.2

4.00
2.36

1.5
0.8

-

6

-

22.0%
18.3%
11.2%
10.6%
1.5%
0
1

5.97

8
3

Table 2. Descriptive statistical values of variables (Cnt.)
Variables/Subscale
nameContent

Response
format for
choices% of Y Min Max MeanSD

Parental restriction and its factors
Parental
Restrictions(alpha =
0.73)
Crime
dangerperception(alpha =0.75)

Coming home from school
Going to friends' houses

always, often,
sometimes,
never

Residential
environment

-

1

4

2.01 0.91
2.01 0.99

Going to neighborhood parks

very safe,
relatively safe,
neither,
Shrines
relatively
Route to and from school
dangerous,
very
Other roads
dangerous
Traffic
The traffic is heavy in this school strongly
dangerdistrict
disagree,perception
There is a risk of road accidents relatively(alpha =on the roads of this school
disagree,
0.81)
district
relatively
agree, strongly
There are dangerous
intersections in this school district agree
Drivers do not respect the traffic
rules in this school district
Neighborhoo Say hello to each othernone, one, twod network
Have short conversations when to three, four
size (alpha = they meet on the street
to five, more
0.75)
than six
Borrow and lend daily goods
Sense ofcommunity(alpha =0.67)

1.68 1.06

Parks

I can identify people who live inthis school district
Residents in this school district
can solve problems on their own
Residents in this school district
do not know each other [R]
It is bothersome to socialize inthis school district [R]Newly developed residential
areas

strongly
disagree,relatively
disagree,relatively
agree, strongly
agree
Y/N

Other areas

3.39 0.80
3.98 0.74-

153.68 0.78
3.87 0.73
3.19 0.70
3.18 0.66-

14
2.94 0.75
3.10 0.74
4.74 0.65-

14.00 1.03

5

3.28 1.15
2.93 1.13
3.00 0.88-

14
2.99 0.92
3.50 0.86

73.5%
26.5%

Locations of playgrounds where parents allow children to play

-

1

3

1.42 0.66

Locations of playgrounds where parents prohibit children fromplaying-131.52 0.73

2.3.1 Children’s outdoor activities
2.3.1.1 Types of activities experienced by children
Nine types of children’s outdoor activities (“playing tag or hide-and-seek,”“playing ball games,” “playing with playground equipment,” “playing with sand box,”“gathering natural plants or climbing trees,” “catching insects,” “playing with handheld
game machines (outdoors),” “exploring unknown places,” and “playing with tradingcards (outdoors)”) were selected from previous studies conducted in Japan (Kajiki et al.,
2002; Sato and Nakamura, 1986). The children were asked whether they had
experienced each type of outdoor activity (multiple answers were allowed).
2.3.1.2 Playmates
The questionnaire asked children about their usual playmates based on six
categories. The children were allowed to choose as many categories as applied to them.
The six playmate categories were “friends of the same age,” “brothers and sisters,”“friends in lower classes,” “friends in upper classes,” “parents,” and “grandparents.”
2.3.1.3 Playgrounds
The questionnaire presented ten types of places in which children often play,including “their houses (outdoors),” “friends’ houses (outdoors),” “parks,” “roads,”“vacant lots,” “children’s recreational facilities (outdoors),” “the schoolyard after
school,” “stores,” “coppices,” and “shrines and temples,” and asked children to identify
as many places as applied to them.
2.3.1.4 Location of playgrounds
In addition to types of playmates and playgrounds, our survey also investigated
the actual locations of playgrounds in order to analyze the spatial relationships between
parental restrictions and children’s playgrounds. The children were asked to indicate theplaces where they often played by placing stickers on a map. The size of each sticker
was five millimeters in radius and the size of the map was 297 millimeters × 420
millimeters (A3 size). Each respondent received a number of maps to cover the entire
school district. The map was created by the authors using existing GIS data with a scaleof 1:5,000. The children could each indicate up to three places.
2.3.2 Parental restrictions and related factors
2.3.2.1 Parental restrictions
Parental restrictions on children’s outdoor activities were measured by asking
parents to rate the extent of restrictions on their children’s everyday activities, inkeeping with previous studies (Hillman et al., 1990; Prezza, 2007). The questionnaire
covered three types of activities that could be restricted by parents to some extent:“coming home from school,” “going to friends’ houses,” and “going to neighborhoodparks.” The parents chose how often they allowed each activity to be done withoutaccompaniment by adults from the following response categories: “always,” “often,”“sometimes,” and “never.” Parental responses were converted to scores, with “always”
as 1 and “never” as 4. A factor analysis was conducted to create a summary measurethat represented the extent of parental restrictions on children’s outdoor activities. Afterchecking that the internal consistency of the responses was acceptable (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.73), a factor score was used in subsequent regression analyses.
2.3.2.2 Crime danger perception
The questionnaire evaluated parental perceptions of safety in terms of crime
victimization. In particular, perceived safety was assessed for four typical publicplaygrounds (“parks,” “shrines,” “route to and from school,” and “other roads”) using afive-point scale ranging from “very safe” (1) to “very dangerous” (4). We calculated afactor score that represented parents’ crime danger perception of the four places andincluded it in subsequent regression models (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75).
2.3.2.3 Traffic danger perception
In addition to perceived safety from crime at distinct locations, we also
assessed parental perception of traffic danger in the study area. Four statements (“thetraffic is heavy in this school district,” “there is a risk of road accidents on the roads ofthis school district,” “there are dangerous intersections in this school district,” and“drivers do not respect the traffic rules in this school district”) were rated by parents
using a four-point scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (4) (Prezza etal., 2005). Similar to crime danger perception, we calculated a factor score and used it
as a traffic danger perception score (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81).
2.3.2.4 Neighborhood network size
Parental perceptions of neighborhood social support in case of dangerous
situations involving children are negatively associated with the extent of parental
restrictions. Parents can let their children go out more easily if they have a large circleof acquaintances in their neighborhood, as they thereby perceive the existence of otherpeople who can care for their children (Huttenmoser, 1995; Prezza et al., 2005). We
adapted survey questions that measured neighborhood network sizes from previous
surveys, such as the General Social Survey (GSS) in the U.S., and simplified them inorder to reflect Japanese cultural contexts. Parents were asked to list the number ofacquaintances who “say hello to each other,” “have short conversations when they meeton the street,” and “borrow and lend daily goods” in their neighborhood using a fivepoint scale ranging from “none” (1) to “more than six” (5). A factor score wascalculated that represented the breadth of parents’ neighborhood network sizes(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75).
2.3.2.5 Sense of community
The degree of “sense of community” can also be a significant component ofsocial support, along with neighborhood network size. Previous studies that measured
sense of community were referred to in this study, and their question wordings were
simplified in order to accommodate Japanese cultural contexts (McMillan and Chavis,
1986; Sasao et al., 2003). In particular, the following four questions were used tomeasure parents’ “sense of community”: “I can identify people who live in this school
district,” “residents in this school district can solve problems on their own,” “residents
in this school district do not know each other,” and, “it is bothersome to socialize in thisschool district.” The last two questions were reverse coded before a factor analysis. The
parents rated each question using a five-point scale that ranged from “strongly disagree”(1) to “strongly agree” (5). A factor score was calculated and used as the score of theparents’ “sense of community” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.67).
2.3.2.6 Residential environment
Types of children’s outdoor activities differed considerably between the two
newly developed residential areas and other areas in the school district. Children livingin the two new areas have many playmates and parks close to their homes, whilechildren in other areas do not. These differences may affect parental restrictions.
Therefore, we asked parents to write down the names of their neighborhoods andcreated a dummy variable by categorizing the answers into “newly developed areas”
and “other areas.”
2.3.2.7 Locations of playgrounds where parents allow and prohibit children’s play
One of the critical limitations of the previous studies that examined parental
restrictions was that they only evaluated parental restrictions in a general form andfailed to examine restrictions in real spaces. It is reasonable to assume that parents do
not restrict children’s activities within the entire area of a school district. Rather,parental restrictions must be attached to specific locations. In order to examine thespatial relationships between parental restrictions and children’s playgrounds, we used

maps to identify parental restrictions in spatial terms. The parents were asked to indicate
a maximum of three places where they allowed children to play and a maximum of
three places where they prohibited children from playing by placing stickers on themaps. The same maps used in the children’s questionnaire were used in that of theparents.
2.4 Statistical analysis
2.4.1 Relationship between parental restrictions and children’s outdoor activities
Two kinds of analysis were conducted to identify the relationship between
parental restrictions and children’s outdoor activities. SPSS19.0 and ArcGIS10.0 wereused for each analysis. The first analysis focused on the relationships between parental
restrictions and children’s activities from a cognitive perspective, while the second
analysis focused on the spatial aspect. These separate analyses were conducted in order
to comprehensively understand the interplay between parental restrictions andchildren’s outdoor activities.
2.4.1.1 Cognitive aspect
The first analysis was composed of two subsets of analyses. A series ofregression models were utilized to uncover the effects of parental restrictions onchildren’s activities. Firstly, logistic regression models examined the effects of parental
restrictions on children’s outdoor activities using each type of outdoor activity,
playmate, and playground as dependent variables and parental restriction scores as
independent variables. The children’s gender, age, and residential area were also used ascontrol variables in this analysis. All independent variables were standardized in order
to examine the relative importance of each effect on children’s outdoor activities. We
also used odds ratios for substantive interpretations. Secondly, a multiple regression
analysis was adopted to find a relationship between parental restrictions and thediversity of children’s outdoor activities using a sum of the types of outdoor activities,
playmates, and playgrounds as dependent variables (for the types of outdoor activities, asquared sum was used because the frequency distribution of the sum of the types ofoutdoor activities was severely skewed). Independent variables were the same as thosein the logistic regression analysis. The statistical significances of the standardized
coefficients of parental restriction scores were examined in each analysis, so that therelative strength of each independent variable could be evaluated.

2.4.1.2 Spatial aspect
The second analysis was also divided into two analyses, which were conductedto discuss the relationship between parental restrictions and children’s outdoor activities
from a spatial point of view using GIS．Firstly, the two nearest neighborhood spatial
association measures (Lee, 1979) were calculated and compared in order to examine thespatial relationships between parental restrictions and children’s outdoor activities. The
first measure assessed the spatial interactions of places in which children are allowed toplay by their parents and places in which children actually play. The second measureassessed the spatial interactions of places in which children were prohibited fromplaying by their parents and places in which children actually played. The nearestneighbor spatial-association measure R’ is calculated by the following expression (1).
This statistic approaches zero when two point patterns are clustered, becomes one when
two point patterns are randomly distributed, and becomes greater than one when two
point patterns are dispersed and regularly distributed.
𝑁𝑁
𝑁𝑁
𝑅𝑅′ = ��∑𝑖𝑖 A 𝑑𝑑AB𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑗𝑗 B 𝑑𝑑BA𝑗𝑗 �⁄𝑁𝑁���𝑛𝑛A ⁄2�𝑁𝑁B ⁄𝐴𝐴 + 𝑛𝑛B ⁄2�𝑁𝑁A ⁄𝐴𝐴�

(1)

where dABi is the rectilinear distance from point i in series A to the nearest point inseries B; dBAj is the rectilinear distance from point j in series B to the nearest point inseries A; Na and Nb are the number of points of series A and B; nA and nB are the ratiosof A and B to the total number of points; and A is the size of the area in which all points
are distributed.
Secondly, the characteristics of the places in which children were allowed toplay or prohibited from playing were examined by overlaying both types of places on aland-use map of the school district and comparing them. Additionally, the places where
many parents allowed their children to play or prohibited their children from playing
were qualitatively examined based on field observations and overlaying aerial
photographs.
2.4.2 Examining factors that influence parental restriction
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was adopted to examine the factors that
influence parental restriction. Parental restriction scores and the other variables
mentioned above were included in the model. The following model building strategy
was used.
The initial model included paths from crime danger perception, traffic danger
perception, neighborhood network size, sense of community, residential environment,and children’s age/gender to parental restrictions. The paths that were statistically notsignificant were deleted, while the paths that were statistically significant were added tothe model. The final model, which had statistically significant paths and was in accord
with theoretical explanations, was interpreted as the optimum model for this study.
Amos 19.0 was used in this analysis.

3. Results
3.1 The relationship between parental restrictions and children’s outdoor activities
3.1.1 Cognitive aspect
The percentage of parents who responded that they “always” or “often”
allowed their children to come home from school without adult accompaniment was
82.8%. This percentage was 78.0% for going to friends’ houses and 74.9% for going toneighborhood parks.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the logistic regression analyses to identify
the relationship between parental restrictions and children’s outdoor activities. In termsof the direction of associations, the analysis indicates that parental restrictions decreased
the likelihood of six of the nine types of activities, although the associations were notstatistically significant (Table 3). This trend was similar to the analyses of playmates.
Parental restrictions negatively affected four of the six kinds of playmates. Additionally,parental restrictions negatively affected the usage of six of the ten kinds of playgrounds,
while some types of activities, playmates, and playgrounds were positively related toparental restrictions. In other words, strict parental restrictions increased the likelihoodthat children would play with their grandparents, with equipment, and in children’s
recreational facilities.

Table 3. Results of logistic regression analysis

Variable

Types of activities experienced by children
GatheringnaturalPlaying with
Playing tag or Playing
Playing with
Catching
plants orplaygroundhide-and-seek ball games
sand box
insects
climbing
equipment
trees
Odds Ratio

Parental
0.94
restriction
School year
0.92
Gender
1.03(girl)
Residential
environment
1.57*(newly developedarea)

Variable

Playingwithtrading
cards(outdoors)

1.18

1.39*

1.25

0.77

0.90

0.89

0.83

0.69*

1.20

0.91

0.82

0.55**

0.85

2.33**

1.33*

1.37*

0.51**

1.02

1.07

1.66**

0.57**

0.61**

0.68**

0.24**

1.26

0.91

1.64**

1.49**

1.25

1.07

1.34*

2.01**

Playmates
Friends of the Brothers Friends in
Friends in
Parentssame ageand sisters lower classes upper classes
Odds Ratio

Parental
0.68*
restriction
School year
0.80
Gender
1.06(girl)
Residential
environment
1.88**(newly developedarea)

Playing withhandheld
Exploringgame
unknownmachineplaces(outdoors)

0.68**

0.81

0.90

1.01

Grandparents

1.86**

0.66**

1.00

0.43**

0.74*

1.07

0.93

0.96

0.93

0.90

0.95

* Denotes p <0.05

0.82

0.93

0.98

0.75*

0.48**** Denotes p <0.01

Table 3. Results of logistic regression analysis (Cnt.)

Variable

Their
Friends'
Parks
houses houses

Parental
1.08
restriction
School year
0.98
Gender
1.15(girl)
Residential
environment
0.730(newly developed
area)

Roads

0.82

0.53** 0.81

1.35

Playgrounds
Children's
Shrines
Vacantrecreational Schoolyard Stores Coppices andlots
facilities
temples
Odds Ratio
0.77

1.32*

1.18

1.04

0.67

0.70

0.73

0.72** 0.87

0.66**

0.81

2.13** 1.16

1.32

1.08

0.93

1.11

1.30

0.90

0.47**

1.84

0.88

1.61** 2.04** 1.34*

0.62**

1.31

1.05

0.24**

0.71** 1.10

1.47*

* Denotes p <0.05** Denotes p <0.01

Table 4 shows the results of a multiple regression analysis using the total
number of types of play that were experienced by the children, the total number of thekinds of playmates with whom children often play, and the total number of kinds ofplaces where they often play as dependent variables. Parental restrictions have weak but
statistically significant negative effects on the total numbers of kinds of playmates andplaygrounds. The diversity of playmates and playgrounds seems to be reduced by strict
parental restriction.

Table 4. Results of multiple regression analysis
Variable

Types of activities
Kinds of playmates(squared)

Kinds ofplaygrounds

standardized partial regression coefficient
Parental restriction-0.08-0.11*-0.12*

School year

0.08

-0.27**-0.08

Gender (girl)-0.30**

-0.05

-0.03

Residential environment(newly developed area)

0.22*

-0.08

-0.17**

3.1.2 Spatial aspect
Fig. 2 shows the distribution of the locations indicated by the parents as places
where they allow children to play or prohibit them from playing, and those that children
indicated as places where they actually play. The nearest-neighbor spatial-association
measure between prohibited places indicated by parents and actual playgrounds
indicated by children was 0.76, while that between allowed places indicated by parents
and actual playgrounds indicated by children was 0.41. Locations in which children
could physically play were not distributed randomly within the school district, so it was
not surprising that both measures indicated statistical clustering of locations wherechildren actually played, locations where parents allowed their children to play, andlocations where parents prohibited their children from playing. The significance of ouranalysis, however, was that the locations where children actually played were moreclosely situated to the locations where parents allowed their children to play than thelocations where parents prohibited their children from playing, as indicated by thesmaller value of the nearest-neighbor spatial association measure for the former
relationship. In other words, children tend to select playgrounds where parents allow
them to play rather than those where parents prohibit them from playing.

Allowed playgrounds pointed out
by parents (n = 222)

Prohibited playgrounds pointed out
by parents (n = 163)

SchoolActual playgrounds pointed out
by children (n = 969)
Figure 2. Point distribution maps pointed out by children and parents

Fig. 3 shows the results of the comparison between land use of allowed andprohibited places. Parents tended to indicate wooded, commercial, and other publicareas as prohibited places and parks as allowed places (p<.01). This result can be
confirmed by looking at the allowed/prohibited places in detail. The aerial photographspresented in Fig. 4 are some of the examples of allowed and prohibited places as
indicated by the number of parents who chose them.
Picture A is a neighborhood park located in a newly developed area. Openareas along roads or near houses tended to be indicated as allowed places by parents,
while wooded and watery areas located in the remote parts of parks were indicated asprohibited areas. Pocket parks that were installed as part of the development of housing
estates tended to be indicated as allowed places, as shown in Picture B. Picture C
presents a pair of block parks located in a newly developed area. These block parks
tended to be indicated as allowed places because of the ease of supervision by parents.
A forest park shown in picture D provides an interesting example, as the park
contains a mixture of allowed and prohibited locations. This park has a lot of athleticequipment, is professionally managed, and is a popular spot for outdoor recreational
activities on weekends. Its dense forest, containing many hideouts, may have stimulatedparental fear and caused parents to identify it as a prohibited place.
Picture E is a schoolyard. The elementary school where this study was
conducted allowed children to play in the schoolyard after school. Schoolyards tended
to be indicated as allowed places by parents.

Allowed Place(n = 222)

Prohibited Place(n = 163)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

wooded areas

agricultural areas

vacant lots

industrial areas

residential areas

commercial and business areas

roads

parks

other public areas

Figure 3. Relationships between allowed/prohibited place and land use

A

B

C

D
Legends
AllowedE

Prohibited
School

200m

E

F

A

D
C
B

Location

Figure 4. Examples of allowed/prohibited places
3.2 Factors influencing parental restrictions
Fig. 5 shows the results of SEM, which explain the structure of the influenceson parental restriction. Our final model excluded non-significant paths as a part of theabove-mentioned model building strategy; estimates are not shown in Fig. 5 in order tosimplify the presentation of the results. The fitness indices of the model were acceptable(AGFI = 0.969, GFI = 0.986, CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.025).
The model suggests first that parental restriction is affected by children’s
school year and gender: young and female children tend to be restricted more strictly.
Second, children living in the two newly developed areas were restricted less strictly
than children living in surrounding rural areas were. Third, parental restriction tightens

when parents perceive danger. However, only the perception of crime danger affectedparental restriction. Fourth, traffic and crime danger perception were negatively affectedby “sense of community.” Lastly, neighborhood network size and “sense ofcommunity” both negatively affected parental restrictions.

Neighborhood
network size
-0.16**

0.24**

Traffic danger
perception-0.11**
0.17**

Sense ofcommunity-0.24**-0.26**AGFI = 0.969
GFI = 0.986
CFI = 0.986
RMSEA = 0.025

0.17**

Parental
restriction

Crime danger
perception-0.29**

Residential
environment

0.13**
Gender ofchildren-0.32**
School yearof children

Figure 5. Result of SEM

4. Discussion
Two main findings were revealed by this study. First, parental restrictions cannegatively affect children’s outdoor activities in Japan, as shown in other countries. Of
the parents surveyed, 70 to 80% allowed their children to perform routine activities,
such as coming home from school, without the accompaniment of adults. Althoughchildren’s age and measurements of parental restriction are different, this percentage ishigher than that of Italy and the United Kingdom (O’Brien et al., 2000; Prezza et al.,2001). Thus, parental restrictions seem to be laxer and children freer in Japan comparedto other countries.

Yet, in spite of their low level, parental restrictions do negatively affectchildren’s outdoor activities in Japan. The results of a logistic regression analysis
indicate that strict parental restrictions change children’s outdoor activities from playing
with other children to playing with the accompaniment of adults and change theirlocation from public open spaces to private territorial spaces, although such restrictions
do not reduce children’s overall experience of each outdoor activity. In sum, parental
restrictions change children’s outdoor activities into easy-to-supervise activities. This
point quantitatively confirms the results of one previous qualitative study (Valentine
and McKendrick, 1997). Moreover, the results of our multiple regression analysis showthat parental restriction also reduces the diversity of children’s playmates andplaygrounds.
The result that parental restriction negatively affects children’s outdoor
activities was also confirmed by our spatial analysis. Children tended to avoid playing
in parent-prohibited areas and tended to select playgrounds where their parents allowed
them to play when their parents’ restrictions were strict. In particular, natural settings,
including coppices, water areas, and agricultural areas, tended to be indicated asprohibited places by parents. It is possible that the parental fear of crime evoked byfeatures such as numerous concealed places, low visibility, and difficulty escaping
caused these natural settings to be places where children were prohibited from playing(Jorgensen et al., 2002; Nasar et al., 1993).
Previous studies have suggested that unstructured, unsupervised outdoor
activities, playing with other children, and playing in green spaces play an importantrole in the development of children’s social skills and autonomy (Fjortoft and Sageie,
2000; Hart, 1979; Moore, 1986). Yet, the results of this study imply the possibility thatparental restrictions have a negative effect on children’s development in Japan, although
this study did not survey children’s development directly.
Few previous studies have empirically examined the negative effects ofparental restriction on children’s outdoor activities (Wen et al., 2009). The strength of
this study is its empirical identification of the relationship between parental restrictions
and children’s outdoor activities based on questionnaire surveys approached from bothcognitive and spatial aspects.
The second finding of this study is that children’s demographic characteristics
and parental perception of environments affected parental restrictions. As expected, it
was found that female and younger children tended to be restricted more strictly thanmale and older children were, as shown by a SEM analysis based on questionnaire
survey data. This result is consistent with previous studies (Carver et al., 2008; Prezza,

2007). However, children living in newly developed areas tended to be restricted lessstrictly than those living in surrounding rural areas, a finding that contrasts withprevious works that have found children in urban areas to be more restricted (Kytta,
2004). This result can be interpreted via the physical characteristics of the newly
developed areas. These areas have more parks and playgrounds than the surrounding
rural areas. The existence of playgrounds near the home can reduce parental restrictions
because parents can easily let their children play outside under their supervision(O’Brien et al., 2000; Prezza et al., 2001). The results of this study thereby seem toreflect the physical characteristics of newly developed areas, which have many easy-tosupervise playgrounds.
Parents who perceived danger in their neighborhoods tended to restrict theirchildren more strictly. However, the perception of danger with regard to traffic was not
related to parental restrictions, while perceived crime danger was significantly related toparental restrictions. The effect of perceived crime danger on parental restrictions is
consistent with previous studies (Carver et al., 2008; Prezza, 2007). The inability toidentify the relationship between perceived traffic danger and parental restrictions isdifficult to interpret because there is a busy road in the school district in question andparental perception of traffic danger is high, as shown in Table 2. Dangerous places interms of traffic safety tend to be related to specific locations. Thus, parents find it easier
to implement strategies to reduce the likelihood of traffic accidents without restricting
children’s outdoor activities (e.g., adding traffic lights, creating sidewalks, etc.).
Perceived danger in terms of crime victimization, on the other hand, may be more
ambiguous and may not necessarily be related to specific locations. That is, perceived
danger in terms of crime tends to be more general and impose stricter control overchildren’s outdoor activities because many factors create criminal opportunities andthese factors tend to be beyond parents’ control. Few studies have empirically examined
the relationship between perceived traffic/crime danger and parental restriction. This
argument awaits further investigation.
Parents who had close ties to neighborhood residents tended to lessen theirrestrictions on their children. This result may be caused by parents’ trust thatneighborhood residents will help their children in case of danger. In fact, in an interview
that was conducted prior to this study, several parents told us: “I think residents livingin this neighborhood will help my child when he faces danger because my child and I fit
well in this neighborhood,” and, “I know most of the residents living in thisneighborhood. I think there are no ‘strange’ or ‘dangerous’ people here, so I can let mychild play in this neighborhood at ease.” These comments seem to support theinterpretation described above. Similar to perception of danger, the relationship between
parent-neighborhood relations and restrictions on children has been seldom studied.
Future studies should examine the generalizability of these results.
The results of this study show that reducing parental perception of danger atplaygrounds, as well as increasing parental perception of strong neighborhood social
ties, is necessary for the relaxation of parental restrictions. The fundamental conceptthat parental restrictions are constructed by parental perception and children’s
demographic characteristics has been demonstrated in Italian studies (Prezza et al.,2001, 2005). The ability to identify commonalities among different countries suggests
the possibility that this fundamental concept can be generalized. We therefore hope that
this concept will be confirmed in other countries in the future.

5. Conclusion
An increase in children’s outdoor activities, such as playing outside, serves animportant purpose in child development. However, parental restrictions can inhibit these
activities. This study examined the relationship between parental restrictions andchildren’s outdoor activities and identified the factors that influence parental restrictions
based on questionnaire surveys administered to both parents and children. The results
show that parental restrictions can make children’s outdoor activities more structured
and supervised. Additionally, parental restrictions were shown to be constructed byparental perception of crime danger, ties to the neighborhood, and children’s
demographic characteristics.
This study proposes two approaches to urban planning that can improvechildren’s outdoor activities. The first is the improvement of playgrounds. A reductionin the perceived risk of crime at playgrounds, accomplished by making supervision byparents easy through changing playground design, can appropriately lead to theimprovement of children’s outdoor activities. However, there are limitations to thisapproach. Not only is it difficult to eliminate all blind spots in playgrounds, but also
diverse playgrounds, including refuges, sometimes play an important role in children’s
healthy development. Thus, this study proposes a different approach for urban planners.
If parental perception of crime danger decreases and social ties to neighborhood
residents become stronger through the urban planning process, children’s outdoor playcan be encouraged even without special spatial renewal of children’s playgrounds. For
example, an urban planning concept that aims to relieve fear of crime and enhanceneighborhood social cohesion, called the “safer cities approach,” “2nd Generation
CPTED,” or “safe growth,” has recently been advocated by urban planners (Saville,

2009; Saville and Cleveland, 2008; Wekerle and Whitzman, 1994). There are similar
examples in Japan. Several cities, including Tsukuba City, have begun to create safer
and freer environments for children by referring to playgrounds from a safety-fromcrime point of view and conducting workshops involving parents and children (Hino,2011). These efforts can improve children’s outdoor activities by changing parental
perception of neighborhood environments as well as directly changing playgroundfeatures. Urban planners can not only built attractive playgrounds for children, but alsochange residential perception of both playgrounds and relationships among residents byinvolving residents in the process of improving playgrounds in order to encouragechildren’s outdoor activities.
This study measured children’s outdoor activities using children’s self-reports.
However, these activities can also be measured objectively using a Global Positioning
System logger. This study could not directly measure children’s mental and physicaldevelopment, so it will be necessary to measure the indices that relate to children’sdevelopment, such as body mass index in future studies. A longitudinal study ofchildren’s development is also needed in order to explicitly identify the relationshipbetween parental restrictions and children’s development.
It is necessary to accumulate similar studies in order to generalize the results.
However, the outlook of this challenge appears bright, as similar studies are being
conducted in many countries. Comparing the results from multiple countries will be aninteresting theme in future studies.

References
Biddle, S., Gorely, T. and Stensel, D. J. (2004) Health-enhancing physical activity andsedentary behaviour in children and adolescents, Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, pp.
679-701.
Blakely, K. S. (1994) Parents’ conceptions of social dangers to children in the urban
environment, Children’s Environments, 11, pp.16-25.
Boreham, C. and Riddoch, C. (2001) The physical activity, fitness and health ofchildren, Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, pp. 915-29.
Burdette, H. L. and Whitaker, R. C. (2005) Resurrecting free play in young children:
Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect, Archives ofPediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, pp. 46-50.
Cabinet Office (2006) Public opinion survey on crime prevention of children (inJapanese) http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/tokubetu/tindex-h18.html.
Carver, A., Timperio, A. and Crawford, D. (2008) Playing it safe: The influence ofneighbourhood safety on children's physical activity: A review, Health & Place, 14, pp.
217-227.
Carver, A., Timperio, A., Hesketh, K. and Crawford, D. (2010) Are children andadolescents less active if parents restrict their physical activity and active transport due
to perceived risk?, Social Science & Medicine, 70, pp. 1799-1805.
Ekelund, U., Sardinha, L. B., Anderssen, S. A. and Harro, M. (2004) Associations
between objectively assessed physical activity and indicators of body fatness in 9- to
10-y-old European children: A population-based study from 4 distinct regions in Europe(the European Youth Heart Study), The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80, pp.
584.
Fjortoft, I. and Sageie, J. (2000) The natural environment as a playground for children:
Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 48, pp. 83-97.

Gill, T. (2007) No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. London: Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation.
Hart, R. (1979) Children's Experience of Place. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hillman, M., Adams, J. and Whitelegg, J. (1990) One false move...A study of children's
independent mobility. London: PSI Publishing.
Hillman, M. (2006) Children’s rights and adults’ wrongs, Children’s Geographies, 4,
pp. 61-67.
Hino, K. (2011) “Bouhan Machizukuri” (Community Building for Crime Prevention) inJapan, Reports of the City Planning Institute of Japan, 10, pp. 38-45.
Horelli, L. (2001) A comparison of children’s autonomous mobility and environmental
participation in Northern and Southern Europe: The cases of Finland and Italy, Journalof Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11, pp. 451-455.
Huttenmoser, M. (1995) Children and their living surroundings: Empiricalinvestigations into the significance of living surroundings for the everyday life anddevelopment of children, Children’s Environments, 12, pp. 403-13.
International Road Federation. (2010) World Road Statistics 2010.
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J. and Calvert, T. (2002) Woodland spaces and edges:
Their impact on perception of safety and preference, Landscape and Urban Planning,
60, pp. 135-150.
Kajiki, N., Seto, A. and Tanaka, T. (2002) Actual conditions of children’s play andparents’ consciousness in urban (in Japanese), Journal of Home Economics of Japan,
53, pp. 943-951.
Karsten, L. (2005) It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity andchange in urban children’s daily use of space, Children’s Geographies, 3, pp. 275-290.
Kytta, M. (2004) The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number ofactualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments, Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 24, pp. 179-198.

Lee, Y. (1979) Nearest-neighbor spatial-association measure for the analysis of firminterdependence, Environment and Planning A, 11, pp. 169-176.
Lin, J. and Chang, H. (2010) Built environment effects on children’s school travel in
Taipei: Independence and travel mode, Urban Studies, 47, pp. 867-889.
Mackett, R., Brown, B., Gong, Y., Kitazawa, K. and Paskins, J. (2007) Setting children
free: Children’s independent movement in the local environment, CASA Working
Paper, pp. 13.
Malone, K. (2007) The bubble-wrap generation: Children growing up in walled
gardens, Environmental Education Research, 13, pp. 513-527.
McMillan, D. W. and Chavis, D. M. (1986) Sense of community: A definition andtheory, Journal of Community Psychology, 14, pp. 6-23.
Moore, R. C. (1986) Childhood’s Domain. London: Croom Helm Ltd.
Nasar, J. L., Fisher, B. and Grannis, M. (1993) Proximate physical cues to fear of crime,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, pp. 161-178.
National Research Institute of Police Science, Japan (2008) A report on daily activities
and crime victimization of Japanese children: Case study of five elementary schools in
Kobe city (in Japanese), National Research Institute of Police Science, Japan, p. 170.
O’Brien, M., Jones, D., Sloan, D. and Rustin, M. (2000) Children’s independent spatial
mobility in the urban public realm, Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 7,
pp. 257-277.
Page, A., Cooper, A. R., Stamatakis, E., Foster, L. J., Crowne, E. C., Sabin, M. andShield, J. P. H. (2005) Physical activity patterns in nonobese and obese children
assessed using minute-by-minute accelerometry, The Journal of Investigative
Dermatology, 29, p. 1070.
Page, A. S., Cooper, A. R., Griew, P. and Jago, R. (2010) Independent mobility,
perceptions of the built environment and children’s participation in play, active traveland structured exercise and sport: The PEACH Project, International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7.

Prezza, M., Alparone, F. R., Cristallo, C. and Luigi, S. (2005) Parental perception ofsocial risk and of positive potentiality of outdoor autonomy for children: The
development of two instruments, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, pp. 437453.
Prezza, M. and Pacilli, M. G. (2007) Current fear of crime, sense of community, andloneliness in Italian adolescents: The role of autonomous mobility and play duringchildhood, Journal of Community Psychology, 35, pp. 151-170.
Prezza, M., Pilloni, S., Morabito, C., Sersante, C., Alparone, F. R. and Giuliani, M. V.
(2001) The influence of psychosocial and environmental factors on children’s
independent mobility and relationship to peer frequentation, Journal of Community &Applied Social Psychology, 11, pp. 435-450.
Prezza, M. (2007) Children’s independent mobility: A review of recent Italian literature,Children, Youth & Environments, 17, pp. 293-318.
Rissotto, A., Tonucci, F. (2002) Freedom of movement and environmental knowledge
in elementary school children, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, pp. 64-77.
Sallis, J. F., Simonsmorton, B. G., Stone, E. J., Corbin, C. B., Epstein, L. H., Faucette,N., Iannotti, R. J., Killen, J. D., Klesges, R. C., Petray, C. K., Rowland, T. W. andTaylor, W. C. (1992) Determinants of physical-activity and interventions in youth,
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 24, pp. S248-S257.
Sasao, T., Koyama, A. and Ikeda, M. (2003) Toward a new generation of faculty
development programs: A community psychological perspective (in Japanese),
International Christian University Publications, I-A, Educational Studies, 45, pp. 55-71.
Sato, T. and Nakamura, O. (1986) Study on the space for children’s play in a school
district (in Japanese), Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architects, 49, pp.
245-250.
Saville, G. (2009) SafeGrowth: Moving forward in neighbourhood development, Built
Environment, 31, pp. 386-403.
Saville, G. and Cleveland, G. (2008) Second-Generation CPTED: The Rise and Fall ofOpportunity Theory, in: R. Atlas (Ed.), 21st Century Security and CPTED: Designingfor Critical Infrastructure Protection and Crime Prevention, pp. 79-90. Boca Raton, FL:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Valentine, G. and McKendrick, J. (1997) Children’s outdoor play: Exploring parental
concerns about children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood, Geoforum 28,
pp. 219-235.
Van Dijk, J., Van Kesteren, J. and Smit, P. (2008) Criminal Victimisation inInternational Perspective. The Hague: Boom Legal Publishers.
Veitch, J., Bagley, S., Ball, K. and Salmon, J. (2006) Where do children usually play? A
qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play,
Health & Place, 12, pp. 383-393.
Wekerle, G. R. and Whitzman, C. (1994) Safe cities: Guidelines for planning, design,and management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Wen, L. M., Kite, J., Merom, D. and Rissel, C. (2009) Time spent playing outdoors
after school and its relationship with independent mobility: A cross-sectional survey ofchildren aged 10-12 years in Sydney, Australia, International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, p. 15.