Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10037-3

The role of children’s independent mobility and social media
use for face‑to‑face social interaction with friends
E. Owen D. Waygood1· Lars E. Olsson2· Ayako Taniguchi3 · Margareta Friman2

Published online: 23 July 2019
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Social interaction with friends is an important contributor to children’s well-being, but
how transport affects this is rarely studied. For two or more children (not of the same
household) to have social interaction where they are physically present (i.e. face-to-face),
requires at least one of them to make a trip. Qualitative work has found that children mention the possibility to socialize with friends as a desirable attribute of independent travel,
and independent travel is associated with knowing where to find friends. However, little is
known quantitatively. Thus, the first objective of this article is to examine whether general
travel patterns and licenses to travel independently relate to face-to-face interaction. Further, children in this era have new tools of communication that were not available widely inprevious generations. Are those tools being used to replace face-to-face interaction? Thus,
a second objective is to examine whether virtual social interaction affects face-to-facesocial interaction. Next, would it be more likely that replacement would occur if children’s
independence was restricted? Which leads to this question, is there any influence of travel
patterns and licences on virtual interaction? The findings suggest that virtual social interaction may be complementary to face-to-face interaction and that being allowed to travel
independently increases those physically present social interactions.
Keywords Social interaction · Independent mobility · Social media · Children

The manuscript submitted here is an expansion and improvement on a paper to be presented at the 2019
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, entitled “Children’s Independent Mobility And
Social Media Use On Face-To-Face Social Interaction With Friends.”
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1111​
6-019-10037​-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* E. Owen D. Waygood
owen.waygood@polymtl.ca
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13

Vol.:(0123456789)

1988

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

Introduction
Social interaction and a sense of belonging are important for the wellbeing of adults
as well as adolescents and young children (Diener et al. 2009; Verlet and Devos 2009;
Park 2004; Pretty et al. 1996). Lack of social relationships is as much of a risk factor for mortality as smoking is, and an even greater risk than obesity, irrespectiveof gender and age (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010). The goal of this study is to examine
children´s travel and social interactions. Children´s virtual behavior has gained greaterattention during recent years as regards possible effects on changed travel behavior andless physical exercise; however, few studies have so far focused on the relationships
between general travel patterns, face-to-face and virtual interactions; or whether virtual interaction is substituting for face-to-face interaction by children (and thus in thelong-run affecting children´s travel). A better understanding of children’s travel behavior and social interactions would help to acknowledge and adequately account for, thesocial interaction effects that may influence children’s mode choice as well as theirwellbeing in life.
Satisfaction with friends has been found to correlate with life satisfaction acrossindividualistic and collectivist cultures for adolescents (Park and Huebner 2005). Talking with friends as a positive daily event is one of the strongest predictors of high life
satisfaction for youth (McCullough, Huebner, and Laughlin 2000 in Park 2004). The
quality of social interactions is important—and where it can be increased, subjective
wellbeing measures have also been found to increase among youth (Makino and Tagami 1998). Despite its importance, social interaction has been largely overlooked byresearch on children’s transportation. Thus, knowing how transport facilitates children
to interact with friends is important for their overall wellbeing.
Social interactions can be separated into those that are done virtually and thosethat are done when one is physically present with another person. Further, the typeof interaction can vary from simply seeing and acknowledging someone and superficial conversation to deep discussions of personal matter. Simply seeing someone andacknowledging them is linked to the development or maintenance of neighbor networks (Grannis 2011). Such initially superficial interactions can grow and develop into
supportive social relationships which are important for children’s physical and subjective wellbeing (Helliwell and Putnam 2004). Other work looking at children’s travel
have also found that adults mention developing local friendships once they had children (Weller and Bruegel 2009).
By analysing data from Sweden, Japan, and Canada, we intend to extend current
knowledge of children’s face-to-face and virtual social interactions and its relation to
travel behaviour and licenses to travel independently. The purpose is not to highlight
one or the other as being “better”, but to find relationships that are consistent acrossthe diverse cultures. The structure for the article is as follows: first, we assess previous
research focusing on children’s social interaction and how those interactions relate totravel, we then present the objectives of our study. Second, we present descriptive data
showing general mode use and independent travel licenses among children across thethree case studies. The analyses focus on cross-cultural differences and relationships
between transport and children’s social interactions. Finally, we present theoretical andmanagerial implications and conclude with a discussion of research limitations.

13

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

1989

Children’s social interaction
Children’s physically present social interaction requires that at least one child makes a trip.
However, modern information communication technology (ICT) can be used for virtualsocial interactions. Its relationship with transport can be to: substitute (i.e. social interaction over ICT rather than be physically present together), augment (i.e. create more of suchactivities), or modify (e.g. the frequency remains the same, but where and when it occurs
may change) (Mokhtarian et al. 2006). For adults, Mokhtarian et al. (ibid) suggest that suchtechnology is more likely to augment or modify in-person social interactions by increasingsocial networks (thus the potential pool of individuals available, which is related to timeand location) and by allowing last-minute changes to plans (e.g. through mobile phones).
For discretionary activities (e.g. leisure, or recreation), ICT has been found to augment
such activities for adults (Senbil and Kitamura 2003). These results would suggest that ICT
use may relate to increased travel for leisure, rather than simply being a substitution. As
such in-person (i.e. physically present) social interaction, as opposed to ICT-based interaction, has been found to be the most important factor in establishing and sustaining social
interactions (Urry 2002) it is important to know how it relates to children as well as adults.
For youth, the example of augmenting travel was found for socially active youth(12–18 years-old) in one study (Kamargianni and Polydoropoulou 2014), where ICT wasused to enable physically present social interaction. Cellular phone (or mobile phone)ownership by children in three countries (Denmark, Finland, and the United Kingdom)
was shown to be lower for children 6–10 years old, but the majority of children aged
11–14 years old had them (Fyhri et al. 2011). That would suggest that these tools are available, and may be changing the frequency of face-to-face interactions. Hjorthol (2008) studied how cellular phones were used to organize trips and found that they facilitated changes
in plans and were used more frequently by families that used cars the most for accompanying children to daycare or school. The study also included a relationship with trips related
to friends. For trips to take or pick up children from appointments with friends, the highest
use of cars is associated with higher use of mobile phones for communication. However, it
is not known what the relationship is between children’s use of ICT and physically meetingwith friends, as opposed to organizing transport with parents. Thus, for children it would
be important to see how ICT might play a role in children’s social interactions and theirtravel. Of further note is the lack of such studies (ICT use and transport related to children
and youth) considering the rapid changes in technology and its uptake.
Another potential influence on children’s social interaction relates to the context ofwhere they live. Cultural norms will differ that will affect the urban form of a city, the typeof neighborhood the child lives in, the variety of destination types, and what expectations
exist with respect to children’s travel and parental supervision (e.g. Hillman et al. 1990). In
some cases, children may live in a neighborhood with mixed land use where a variety ofdestinations exist, while others may live in a situation where only residential use is permitted. In the latter situation, a child would possibly need greater mobility in order to reachleisure destinations (Tranter and Whitelegg 1994). As well, the age at which parents expect
their children to travel independently differs between cultures (Joshi and MacLean 1997),
which can affect the freedom children have or the likelihood of active trips (Waygood andSusilo 2011).
Children living in urban environments have been found to conduct more physically
active play at public locations as opposed to those in less developed areas who were more
likely to play at a home (Waygood and Kitamura 2009). That may be related to the child’s

13

1990

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

mobility options, but also likely relates to space limitations at home and a variety of possible destinations nearby. In a study on children’s important places, children highlighted
places that were very local and which had a good potential of meeting friends (Min and
Lee 2006). This can be seen in other studies, where the chance to “bump into friends” is an
important attribute of a destination (Banerjee et al. 2014). However, where such places are(the places where children meet friends) is less well known. Thus, independent travel bychildren will likely play a role in the frequency of meeting with friends, but also likely thediversity of locations where this can occur.
Children identify social interactions as an important part of a good neighborhood (Freeman and Tranter 2011). This can be either saying hello to neighbors, or getting to know
your community. The authors also cite the “Children’s Manifesto” of Bologna where social
activities dominate such as having places to meet and play with others, but so too are transport impacts such as having low vehicle speeds. However, the relationship between transport, modern communication technologies, and social interactions is not well studied.

Children’s social interactions related to travel
Movement is often a prerequisite for social interaction. Both children and adults travel tomeet loved ones, friends and colleagues, or government officials. Sometimes people choose
to travel alone but still meet people along the way. Sometimes people interact throughout the journey as when sharing the trip with a travel companion (Westman et al. 2017b).
Research confirms that social interaction relates to children’s travel (Carver et al. 2005) andmore detailed studies show how the likelihood of social interaction varies depending on
the mode of transport. As an example, the probability of meeting and socially interacting
increases if people walk compared to using other modes of transport. Walking among children increases the likelihood for them of meeting someone they already known (Waygood
and Friman 2015; Waygood et al. 2017).
Although there are no studies on children, studies with adults show that traveling with acompanion and interacting with other people during travel positively affects travel satisfaction (both mood during travel as well as the evaluation of the whole trip, see for instanceresearch done by De Vos 2017; Lancée et al. 2017; Mokhtarian et al. 2015; Morris andGuerra 2015; Zhu and Fan 2018). Travel time is often described as a negative cost but
when filled with meaningful activities or social interactions it can in the opposite be very
positive (Mokhtarian et al. 2006) and thus having a positive effect on travel satisfaction.
There are a variety of types of social interactions from simply seeing someone to having a deeper interaction such as sharing emotions and feelings. Although the quality ofthe social interaction is found to be important for life satisfaction, casual interactions arelikely important for building local social connections that in turn support improved wellbeing. Social interactions related to travel are posited to have indirect effects on life satisfaction through satisfaction with travel and emotional well-being. For adults, De Vos (2017)
suggested that travel satisfaction mainly has an indirect effect on life satisfaction, throughparticipation in leisure activities. Further, he notes that for adults participating in a leisureactivity with friends results in the highest level of satisfaction. Thus, assuming the same
influence, it is important to know how trips to meet friends relate to a child’s travel options.
Children mention that walking with friends gives them the opportunity to discuss things
that they would not discuss in the presence of a parent or a supervising adult (Kirby andInchley 2013; Romero 2010). On the contrary, being separated from friends is seen asa negative aspect of travel in cars (Barker 2006). Transport is often seen as a means of13

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

1991

simply getting to the final destination, but for children, the most important aspect of travelis related to socializing (Zwerts et al. 2010).
Parents often report that traveling with children is an opportunity to discuss life withthem. This of course can occur with any mode, but it is given as a reason for driving children (Westman et al. 2017a). Buliung et al. (2015) discusses the paradoxical nature ofautomobiles and their use where they create danger, but are also seen as a mobile place
for social interactions with friends and family. The importance of discussions with family
and friends while traveling by car was also identified by Barker (2009). As well, a studyof adults’ trip quality finds that travel with children is associated to greater happiness, lessstress, sadness, and pain than traveling alone (Zhu and Fan 2018). A study with Dutch
adults also found that travel with children had a positive influence on mood, though it was
not as great as travel with other adults (Lancée et al. 2017). However, studies on children’s
desired mode and companionship finds that they prefer active modes and travelling independently of their parents (Lopes et al. 2018).
Independent mobility likely plays an important role in facilitating social interaction (Berg and Medrich 1980; Lynch and Banerjee 1976), whether that be during a trip
or travelling to meet a friend. A study of young people’s (12–18 years old) use of public
transport in London, U.K., (Jones et al. 2012) found that the free use of that mode allowed
for social interaction during trips, but also the loss of that mobility option limited one’s
capacity to reach and interact with friends. The authors wrote that the youth framed bus
use in terms of socialability. It was not just interactions with friends, but also with the general public; whether that be chatting with an “old dear” or being reminded to pick up theirlitter. Thus transport, both the means of accessing locations, but also the mode used can
influence social interactions.
Related to the link between travel, social interaction and wellbeing, other researchers
have investigated how greater independent travel (e.g., spatial freedom) is associated withgreater neighborhood social capital (Weller and Bruegel 2009) also supporting the hypothesis that social interactions are related to travel. Related to that, mothers who were strongly
connected to their neighbors had children who were more independent (Prezza et al. 2001).
Thus, a positive cycle can be seen between building social support through active and independent travel, and social support facilitating independent travel.
Finally, some studies have focused on the role of the built environment on transport andsocial interaction. Children living in walkable neighbourhoods, not only depict more active
travel, but also report more peer interaction (Holt et al. 2008). Children who live in urbanized areas (Waygood and Kitamura 2009) and in areas with restricted traffic (Waygood andFriman 2015) report a higher degree of incidental social interactions than children living
in other built environments. However, the results are not conclusive as the built environment was not found to play a significant role in a study of children´s travel in Quebec City
(Waygood 2018). Studies of important places for children find that the social affordance ofdestinations is one of the most common uses and that this is most likely the aspect of being
with friends (Lopes et al. 2018; Kyttä et al. 2012). In those studies, active travel is typicallythe most common means of access, though older children may use public transport as well.

Objectives
In this paper, the relationship between independent travel options for children and numerous social interaction measures will be examined in three different cultural contexts: Canada, Japan, and Sweden. Using a cross-cultural approach, we try to further understand

13

1992

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

children’s face-to-face and virtual social interactions with friends in a variety of culturalcontexts. Thus, the same surveys were conducted in each country which asked generalquestions about travel behaviour, independent travel licenses, social media use, where theymeet friends, and the frequency of contact (in person and virtual) outside of school withpeople that they do not live with. The objectives of this study are to better understand:(a) whether general travel patterns and licenses to travel independently relate to face-toface interaction; (b) whether virtual interaction is substituting for face-to-face interaction;(c) whether general travel patterns and licenses to travel independently relate to virtualinteraction.

MethodThe same surveys were conducted in the three different countries (Canada, Japan, and Sweden) using the local language (French in the case of Quebec, Canada). Surveys were translated and back-translated to insure accuracy. Details on the survey can be found in Waygood et al. (2018). The surveys were conducted with grade five students at public schools(six in Canada, two in Japan, and two in Sweden). In Japan and Sweden, all students participated through previous research participation agreements. In Canada, the participation
rate varied from school to school from 50 to 100% (the majority were around 75%) depending on parental consent.
The key questions relevant to this study are shown in Table 1 with their possible
responses. General questions were also gathered on gender, age, household structure,
household car ownership, bicycle ownership (for the child), public transport pass (for thechild), household internet access, and questions related to household electronics (televisions, computers, video game systems, cellular phones).

Study areas
Quebec, Canada
Quebec is the capital city of the province of Quebec in Canada. The city of Quebec had
a population of 516,620 in 2011 and the metropolitan area in 2014 had a population of
800,900 (Statistics Canada 2017). Most trips are made by car, with 85% of trips to workby car (CMQ 2016). For children aged nine through eleven, the largest modal share iscar (45%) followed by walking (27%), and then school bus (25%), and finally cycling andpublic transport (each at 1%) (Waygood 2018). Six public schools participated, with two
schools from the central, old suburbs, and new suburban/peripheral areas.

Hadano, Japan
Hadano had a population of 167,000 in 2016 and is located in Kanagawa prefecture; this is
the west side of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. Most commutes to work were by car (48%)
and then rail (27%). For children aged seven to eighteen, the main mode is on foot (63%)
and then by rail (22%), followed by cycling at 6% and then public bus with 3%.

13

For walking/cycling/public transport/car/other: how frequently do you use(mode)?
Social interaction How often do you use social media?
For weekday and weekend separately: Apart from school, where do you
pass time with friends?
For face-to-face and virtual separately: after school, do you have contact
with friends or others who are not part of your household?

For walking/cycling/public transport: are you allowed to travel with friends
during the day?
For walking/cycling/public transport: are you allowed to travel alone atnight by (mode)?
For walking/cycling/public transport: are you allowed to travel with friends
at night?
How far are you allowed to go alone?

Nowhere; my neighborhood; nearby neighborhoods (about 15–30 min onfoot); most of the city
Daily; a couple of times a week; a couple of times a month; a couple of times
a year; never
Many times a day; several times a week; rarely; neverHome; at a friend’s home (who live in my area; who do not live in my area);outdoors in my area; outdoors in public place
Every day; several times a week; rarely; neverYes/noYes/noYes/noFor walking/cycling/public transport: are you allowed to travel alone during Yes/nothe day by (mode)?

Transport

Response options

Question

Theme

Table 1  Questions in the survey included in the analyses

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009
1993

13

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

1994

Table 2  Descriptive information on participants from Canada, Japan and Sweden
CanadaJapan

SwedenParticipants (N)

137

167

152

Female (%)
Mean age
Bicycle (%)
Bus pass (%)
Mean number of household cars
Mean number of household members
Mean number of adults within the household
Mean number of siblings

45%
10.3
94.7%
15.3%
1.41
4.5
1.88
1.56

62%
10.9
89.6%
52.2%
1.81
4.9
2.33
1.54

48%
11
95.7%
44.2%
1.96
4.9
2.17
1.70

Karlstad, Sweden
Karlstad is a medium-sized Swedish city located in Värmland County with a populationof 89,000 in 2017, and a county population of 273,000. The main mode of travel is by car(59%), then by bicycle (19%), then public transport (9%). General statistics on children’s
travel in Sweden are not available. However, previous research by Björklid and Gummesson (2013) found that for trips to school the majority was on foot (54%), then school buses(26%), and then local rail (6%), cycling (4%), and car (3%).

Participants
The samples (see Table 2) were not intended to be representative, nor are they representative of all living contexts of each country. One reason for conducting the same survey ineach country is to avoid results that are anecdotal to one country. Here, samples of children
from three distinct cultures1 are examined with the goal of finding relationships between
travel behaviours and social interaction outcomes.
Children’s travel differs between cultures and the reported general mode use can beseen in Table 3. For modes that could be used independently, 70.1% of Swedish children
reported using their feet, a bicycle, and a bus, followed by the children living Japan (66.4%)
and then the children living in Canada (45.2%). It should be noted that the children living
in Sweden and Japan live in smaller centers, so it is not a matter of living in larger urban
centers that explains the higher public transport use seen here.
Children’s independence may influence the likelihood that they meet up with friends.
Following on work from Hillman et al. (1990), the children were asked about “licenses”
to travel independently (though the questions differed). As can be seen in Table 4, licences
related to traveling by that mode alone during the day, traveling by that mode with friends
during the day, traveling by that mode alone at night, and traveling by that mode with

1

Here the assumption is that they are distinct cultures as the languages are different and the continents aredifferent. According to Schwartz’s cultural value orientations (Schwartz 2008), Sweden values less “mastery” (independent, social recognition) than the other two, Japan values more “hierarchy” (humble, social
power) and less “egalitarian” (equality, social justice) than the other two. They are similar for “intellectualautonomy” (creative, curious), “harmony” (world at peace, protecting the environment), and (lower than
average for) “embeddedness” (devout, national security, social order).

13

1995

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009
Table 3  General mode use

Canada (N = 137)(%)

Japan (N = 158)(%)

Sweden(N = 139)
(%)

8.0
6.6
10.2
22.6
52.6

0.0
0.6
3.2
6.3
89.9

5.4
5.4
17.7
21.5
50.0

6.9
23.7
22.1
29.8
13.7

21.3
11.0
23.9
37.4
6.5

6.5
10.9
27.5
28.3
26.8

45.0
23.7
10.7
9.2
2.3

16.3
39.2
30.7
12.4
1.3

23.8
32.8
22.1
14.8
6.6

3.7
3.7
7.5
42.5
39.6

0.6
1.3
5.7
53.5
38.9

0.7
6.5
9.4
56.1
27.3

Walk
Never
YearlyMonthly
Weekly
Daily
Bike
Never
YearlyMonthly
Weekly
Daily
Bus
Never
YearlyMonthly
Weekly
Daily
Car
Never
YearlyMonthly
WeeklyDaily

friends at night. The children living in Sweden were the most likely to have the different
licenses measured here, followed by the children living in Canada, and then the children
from the Japanese sample. Having more licenses to travel alone at night was also found forchildren in Finland as compared to children living in Japan (Shaw et al. 2015). However,it should be noted that on December 14, daylight in Stockholm (same for Karlstad) is from
8:37 to 14:47, whereas in Tokyo (same for Hadano) it is from 6:42 to 16:28.2 For Quebec,
the daylight hours on that day are 7:22–15:56. Thus, children in the northern countries
would need to be allowed to walk home in the dark to return from school, which is not thecase in most of Japan.

2

www.timea​nddat​e.com.

13

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

1996
Table 4  Independent travel
licenses

Canada(n = 137) (%)

Japan(n = 167)(%)

Sweden(n = 152)
(%)

62
69
42
26

28
44
5
4

71
73
49
49

76
51
19
17

31
40
2
1

70
70
51
52

11
7
7
6

18
17
3
2

41
38
20
16

7
31
35
11

8
32
16
43

1
4
44
51

Walk
Day with friends
Day alone
Night with friends
Night aloneBike
Day with friends
Day alone
Night with friends
Night aloneBus
Day with friends
Day alone
Night with friends
Night alone
Distancea
NowhereOwn neighborhood
Nearby neighborhoods
All of the citya

In some cases, the children did not respond to the question, so thetotal may not be 100%

Analysis
General cross‑culture comparisons
Data was analyzed using STATA v. 14.2. Differences between countries were tested inanalyses-of-variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc tests. We used four questions to
examine relationships between travel patterns and independent licenses with social interactions: where children meet friends (Table 5); the frequency of face-to-face social interactions outside of school (Table 6); the frequency of virtual social interactions outside ofschool (Table 6); and social media use (Table 7).
Where children meet friends outside of school relates to their accessibility. It is a combination of both their mobility options and the availability of destinations. In Table 5, it ispossible to see that the locations where and when children play varied across three study
areas. For the children in Canada, the children reported that they were more likely to meetfriends at locations on the weekend. For children in Japan, they were more likely to meetfriends during the week. For children in Sweden, there was little change between the twoparts of the week. As well, those children were also more likely to report meeting friends
at the locations.
Having face-to-fact contact rather than virtual contact may relate to a child’s ability to reach their friends. For contact with friends after school (Table 6), the results for

13

1997

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009
Table 5  Where children meet friends outside of school
Canada (n = 137)(%)

Japan (n = 159) (%)

Sweden(n = 140)(%)

My house, weekday

51.1[s]57.9[s]84.2[c,j]

My house, weekend
Friend’s house nearby, weekday
Friend’s house nearby, weekend
Friend’s house far, weekday
Friend’s house far, weekend
Outside close to home, weekday
Outside close to home, weekend
Outside in a public place, weekday
Outside in a public place, weekend

78.9
45.3[s]69.3[j]13.9[j,s]54.7[j]48.9
62.8[j,s]
29.9[j,s]
48.9

40.3
52.8[s]32.1[c,s]
40.9[c,s]
28.9[c,s]
47.2
37.1[c,s]
54.7[c]40.9[s]

c
j

[j]

[c,s]

81.4[j]75.0[c,j]
72.9[j]59.3[c,j]
62.6[j]50.0
47.9[c,j]
57.9[c]59.3[j]Statistically different at p < 0.01 with Canada

Statistically different at p < 0.01 with Japans

Statistically different at p < 0.01 with Sweden

Table 6  Contact with friends
after school

Canada[s](n = 272) (%)

Japan[s] (n = 159) (%)

Sweden[c,j](n = 139) (%)

9.6
21.6
39.2
29.6
Canada[j]
18.8
27.3
35.9
18.0

8.8
23.3
37.1
30.8
Japan[c,s]
58.5
15.1
14.5
11.9

0.7
12.9
79.1
7.2
Sweden[j]
11.3
30.8
30.8
27.1

Face-to-face
NeverRarelySometimes
Everyday
VirtualNever
RarelySometimes
Everydaycj

Statistically different at p < 0.01 with Canada

Statistically different at p < 0.01 with Japans

Statistically different at p < 0.01 with Sweden

Table 7  Frequency of social
media use by country in percent

Canada*(n = 298) (%)

Japan* (n = 158) Sweden*(%)(n = 138)
(%)

Never

27.0

36.7

10.1

RarelySometimes
Everyday

17.6
34.6
20.8

22.8
16.5
24.1

8.0
26.8
55.1

*Children’s use of social media is statistically different in each country
at p < 0.005 based on a Chi squared test of independence

13

1998

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

face-to-face contact are quite similar for the children in Canada and Japan with the majority reporting sometimes or everyday. For the Swedish sample, the vast majority (79%)
reported meeting friends sometimes. For virtual contact, the children in Sweden reported
higher frequencies here as well, followed by the children in Canada. The majority of children in did not have virtual contact with their friends.
Social media may act as a substitution for physically present social interaction, which
requires transport. The frequency of social media use (Table 7) follows similar result to thevirtual social contact reported in Table 6 in that the children in Sweden report the highestuse, followed by the children in Canada, and the majority of children in Japan either rarelyor never using it.

Children´s travel behaviour and social interaction
In this section, statistical models are presented that examine relationships between travel
behaviour, independent travel options, and each of the social interaction measures. For
each analysis presented, these variables were tested for significant relationships: gender,
age, transport mode frequency, and independent licenses. If the variables were not significant, they were not retained in the results presented here.

Do children travel to meet friends?
In the survey, children checked off where they met friends. Binary analyses were conducted
for each of these locations (coding of the dependent variable: 1 = child meets friends at
the location; 0 = no meeting) against measures of age, gender, mode frequency and mode
“licenses” (explanatory variables), but are not reported in detail due to lack of space (seeAnnex). However, the main findings for the likelihood that chidlren indicated meeting afriend at a location were the relationships between the licences that children reported having, but not the frequency of mode use. For all locations, the more walking and cycling
licences that the children had, the more likely they were to report meeting friends at eachlocation. For bus licenses, it was less clear, though the general trend was positive. For the
distances that the children reported being allowed to go, this only influenced play at homeand meeting at public places. Having the right to travel anywhere was positively associatedwith going to a friend’s home outside of their neighborhood. An overall conclusion is that,the greater the autonomy, the more likely the children were to report meeting with friends
at the locations included in this study. Thus, children travel to meet friends, but it is notmode use frequency determining this relation, but the licences to travel. It is not known
from the information what mode they usually use to meet with friends, only the overallfrequency of mode use.

Variety of locations where children meet together
As mentioned above, the variety of locations where children meet their friends likely
relates to their level of accessibility. This will relate to both the availability of destinations,but also the child’s mobility options. The number of different places where children reportthat they meet their friends on the weekday or weekend was tallied (i.e. a sum of all places
where they meet friends for all days of the week). The research question here is whether
the total number of places a child meets friends can be explained by their travel licenses.
As the dependent variable (number of places) is a continuous variable a multivariate

13

1999

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009
Table 8  Regression analysis on
the total number of places a childreported meeting friends (sumof weekday and weekend) withsignificant results in bold

Coef.

P>t

Beta

–
0.115
0.621
1.145
–
0.595
0.636
0.626
1.075

–
0.835
0.261
0.038
–
0.116
0.104
0.260
0.027

–
0.021
0.125
0.240
–
0.103
0.116
0.071
0.189

− 0.052
0.985
2.194
1.256
0.000
− 0.314− 0.206
2.450

0.886
0.008
< 0.0010.014− 0.009
0.182
0.220
0.212

0.361
0.547
<0.001− 0.067− 0.043

Distance allowed to travel alone
Nowhere (ref.)My neighborhood
Nearby neighborhoods
All of city
Walking licenses (ref. 0)
1.000a
2.000
3.000
4.000
Biking license (ref. 0)
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
Canada (ref.)Japan
SwedenConstant

N = 359, Prob > F < 0.001, ­R2 = 0.234

aThese are the sum of the number of licenses reported by the child

regression model was applied in the analyses (Table 8). Apart from walking and biking
licenses shown here, the bus licenses were tested, along with age, gender, and household
car ownership, but none were found to be significant, so they are not included in Table 8.
The beta shown in Table 8 is the normalized influence of the variable. As such, it can beused to determine the power of the influence. It can be seen that the most independent
children (with the most licenses for walking and cycling, as well as the distance they areallowed to go alone) have statistically stronger and positive influences on the number ofdifferent places. No cultural differences were detected. Thus, the number of places a childmeets their friends on the weekday or weekend can be explained by the number of licences
for walking and biking they are given. It is not clear why having four biking licences would
not have a greater positive influence than having three at this point.

Face‑to‑face interaction frequency
Face-to-face interaction requires that at least one child makes a trip. As such, their mobility
options and the variety of locations where they meet friends will affect the accessibility tofriends. As well, virtual social interaction may act as a replacement for face-to-face meetings, but it could also facilitate such meetings. To explain children’s face-to-face interaction outside of school (with people with whom they do not live), an ordered logit model(Table 9) was used with the frequency as the dependent variable. The bus licenses were
tested, along with age and gender, but none were found to be significant, so they are notincluded in Table 9. As can be seen in Table 9, everyday virtual social interactions increase13

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

2000
Table 9  Ordered logit model offrequency to have face-to-facesocial contact outside of schoolwith people with whom the childdoes not live

Odds ratio
Virtual social interaction freq. (ref. never)

1.0

RarelyA few times a week
Everyday
Independence distance (ref. nowhere)
Own neighborhood
Nearby neighborhoods
Anywhere in city
Walking licences
Bicycling licenses
Sum of locations where they meet friends
Household cars
Canada (ref.)Japan
Sweden
/cut1
/cut2
/cut3

1.08
1.40
2.39
1.0
4.63
3.14
1.80
0.85
1.31
1.12
1.05
0.000
1.43
0.82
− 0.933
0.844
3.371

P>t
0.799
0.288
0.019
0.005
0.038
0.281
0.157
0.028
0.026
0.657
0.355
0.563

Significant results are in bold

N = 326, Prob > chi2 = 0.002, Pseudo ­R2 = 0.042

face-to-face interaction outside of school as the licences to travel within one’s own andnearby neighborhoods, bicycling licenses, and sum of locations. The results suggest thathaving a licence to travel within one’s neighborhood is a more positive impact than having greater range (i.e. to nearby neighborhoods). This result may be due to a child living in a context where their needs are local, which may be linked to higher densities, andalong with that smaller range, they are more likely to come across people they know. No
cultural effects were detected on face-to-face interaction frequency once those factors areaccounted for.

Virtual social interaction frequency
Increased use of virtual social interaction may be a result of the inability to access friends.
Further to real-world accessibility (i.e. mobility and a destination), access to communication tools will likely play a role. To explain children´s virtual social interaction, an order logit
model (Table 10) was applied. Virtual social interaction frequency was used as the dependent variable (never, rarely, a few times a week, every day). In this analysis, measures related
to technology were included along with the measures of independent mobility (licenses anddistance). Walking and cycling licenses along with age were not significant and therefore notincluded in Table 10. The number of computers and access to internet at home were left inthe model as their use would, intuitively, be linked to virtual interaction. The results showedthat the number of cellular phones, the licence to travel the entire city, bus licenses, and thevariety in locations had a positive and significant effect on children’s virtual social interaction
frequency. The samples from Japan and Sweden find that the children differed from sample of

13

2001

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009
Table 10  An ordered logit
regression on the frequency of
having virtual social interaction

Odds ratio
FemaleInternet at home
Cellular phones (#)
Computers (#)
Alone dist. (ref. nowhere)
Own neighborhood
Nearby neighborhoods
Entire city
Bus licenses
Sum of locations where they meetfriends
Canada (ref.)Japan
Sweden/cut1 (rarely)/cut2 (a few times/wk)/cut3 (everyday)

1.57

1.52
1.30
1.00
1.0
1.22
1.84
3.44
1.20
1.14

1.0
0.12
0.32
1.360
2.594
4.023

P>t
0.027

0.574
< 0.001
0.928
0.745
0.308
0.039
0.076
0.003
< 0.001< 0.001

Significant results are in bold

N = 361, Prob > chi2 < 0.001, Pseudo ­R2 = 0.122

children from Canada in having fewer virtual social interactions once these factors were taken
into account. However, overall, children living in Sweden did report having more frequent
overall virtual interaction (Table 6).

Social media use
As mentioned above, the use of social media may be a replacement or “crutch” for a lack offace-to-face interactions. As such, licences to travel (their mobility options) and destinations
may play a role. As well, the type of transport could play a role as it may be easier to use modern communication tools on public transport. To explain social media use, an ordered logit
model was applied (Table 11). Here, age and licenses for walking and cycling were found tobe highly insignificant and were dropped out from the model (not included in Table 11). The
number of places that children meet and the frequency of face-to-face social interaction were
not significant either. The variable for gender was retained as it was found to be related tovirtual social interactions. As with virtual social interaction frequency, having access to internet at home and the household’s number of computers were retained because of the theoretical likelihood that they would be related. As can be seen (Table 11) cellular phones and bus
licenses had a positive effect on frequency of using social media. The children living in Canada differed from the children in Japan and Sweden in frequency of using social media when
their virtual social interaction was taken into account.

13

2002

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

Table 11  An ordered logit
regression on the frequency ofusing social media

Odds ratio
Virtual social interaction frequency(ref. never)RarelyA few times a week
EverydayFemaleInternet at home
Cellular phones (#)
Computers (#)
Bus licenses
Canada (ref.)Japan
Sweden/cut1 (rarely)/cut2 (a few times/wk)/cut3 (everyday)

P>t

1.0
3.60
8.88
41.14
1.41
0.73
1.22
0.93
1.45
1.0
2.02
3.85
1.797
2.811
4.439

< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001
0.118
0.608
0.003
0.141
0.001
0.026
< 0.001

Significant results are in bold

N = 372, Prob > chi2 < 0.001 Pseudo ­R2 = 0.229

Fig. 1  Relationships found in this study (all relationships are positive and significant if shown)

Summary of results
Relationships between transport and children’s social interactions were examined (to givean overview, we have summarized all relationships found in this study in Fig. 1). Transport
was operationalised as frequency of mode use, licenses for using independent modes and13

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

2003

independent travel distance. Four different measures of social interaction were included:
places where the children meet their friends on weekdays and weekends, the frequency of
having face-to-face interaction outside of school, the frequency of virtual social interaction,and the frequency of social media use. The reported frequency of use of different modes(on foot, by bike, by car, by bus) were not related to children´s social interaction. However,two measures of being allowed to travel independently (distance and by different modes)
were found to be related to increased diversity in locations to meet friends and in the frequency of having face-to-face interactions. Only licences to go by bus was associated tovirtual interaction and social media use.

Discussion
This study sought to examine general relationships between children’s transport and theirsocial interactions. Three separate countries were included so as to search for relationshipsthat hold across the countries with distinct cultures. This section focusses on the importance of place, face-to-face and virtual social interactions for the possibility to meet friends
as well as its relation to transport. We end with concluding remarks.

Where are today´s children meeting their friends?
The first analysis considered where children reported meeting with friends. First, it must
be noted that this was a non-exhaustive list without the option of “other”. In this analysis,
it can be seen that there are different experiences in the three countries. The results showthat less than half of the children included in this study report meeting with friends at thelocations included in the survey during the week, but that the frequency increases significantly during the weekends. The most common locations were in their own home, a nearby
friend’s home, and an outdoor location near to home.
In contrast to the sample from Canada, the children in Japan were more likely to meetwith friends during the week than on the weekends. The children in Japan were unlikely tomeet with friends on the weekend (less than 50%). The most common locations during the
weekday were at their home, a nearby friend’s home, or at an outdoor public location. In
Japan, the likelihood of playing at home is similar to playing at an outdoor public location.
This may reflect housing style, but also cultural norms. In previous studies in Japan, it wasnoted that children in urban areas were more likely to play in public spaces, while those inless built-up areas were more likely to play at home (Waygood and Kitamura 2009). Travel
on Sundays was primarily with the family in Japan (Waygood 2009), which may explain
the lower likelihood of meeting friends on the weekend.
The sample of children living in Sweden reported the highest likelihood of meeting friends for all locations (an exception was outside locations nearby their home on theweekend). The highest frequency, for both weekday and weekend, were in their home, at afriend’s home nearby, and at a friend’s home not in their neighborhood. Overall, the children in Sweden in this study reported a higher variety in locations where they could meettheir friends. This could tentatively be explained by the built environment (e.g., frequencyof bike lanes, child friendly environment) or by cultural aspects (e.g., when a child is considered mature enough to control their own social network, or whether it is an individualistic or collective society). This needs further research.

13

2004

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

We also analysed the total number of locations where a child met with friends. Being
allowed to go anywhere in the city, having all of the walking licenses, and having at least
two cycling licenses were all positively associated with an increase in the total number oflocations. Again, a greater autonomy is associated with a greater range of places wherechildren can meet friends. Future research may include more measures on where children
meet their friends in order to get a full picture of different places.

How frequently do children have face‑to‑face social interaction outside of school?
Children in Canada and Japan reported similar experiences with face-to-face social interactions. However, there were also many children who reported rarely having any face-to-faceinteraction with friends. These results raise questions for further research on children´sinclusion and exclusion in society and how to encourage and facilitate interactions withfriends. Perhaps reflecting the range of places, 86% of children from the Swedish sample
reported having face-to-face interaction a few days a week or daily. Future research should
focus on lessons learned from Sweden on how to increase children´s possibilities to maintain face-to-face interactions outside of school.
The results from this study showed that children’s autonomy had a positive relationshipto frequency of face-to-face social interactions. Children who moved around their neighborhood independently, and those with more bicycle licenses were more likely to reporthaving face-to-face social interaction. It is not known whether it is the advantage of mobility that a bicycle offers, or a proxy for greater traffic maturity. As well, a positive relationship was found between children’s autonomy and the number of places where children
meet up. Thus, a certain synergy can be seen where autonomy is allowing the children toreach more places, which allows for more frequent interaction.
A positive relationship was also found between having virtual social interaction andface-to-face social interaction reflecting previous findings by Kamargianni and Polydoropoulou (2014). The result suggests a few things. Children who are more socially engaged
have more overall opportunities to meet or interact with peers. It could also be that suchchildren seek out such activities more often. However, it is not clear why such children
would also have more independent mobility, so that may be a factor that is separate from achild’s natural disposition. It could be that the desire to meet with other children stimulates
the child to ask for permission to go in search of, or to visit, friends, thus building theirlicences to travel independently.

How frequently do children have virtual social interaction outside of school?
This study examined virtual social interaction outside of school (with others not living attheir home). In this case, Canada and Sweden had similar results (57% and 58% respectively) for having virtual social interaction a few times a week or always. In contrast, thelarge majority (74%) of the children living in Japan reported having little to no virtualsocial interaction. For this type of social interaction, licenses for active modes or frequencyof having face-to-face social interaction did not have a significant relationship. However,virtual social interactions had a significant relationship to bus licenses and being allowed
to travel around the city. This may reflect activities on the move and time use on public transit, similar to what has been found for adults (Clayton et al. 2017). Here, females
were more likely to have such social interaction, and also the number of household cellular
phones was positively associated to virtual social interactions. Having access to internet

13

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

2005

and computers at home was not associated. Finally, a positive association was found with
the number of reported places where they met with friends. Again, these results reflect thefindings of a study of youth (ages 12–18) in Greece where it was found that those who usedonline social networks more frequently also reported more frequent trips for social purposes (Kamargianni and Polydoropoulou 2014).

Does social media use relate to transport or meeting with friends?
The use of social media differed between countries. Sweden had the highest social media
use with over 80% of the children reporting that they use it several days a week or daily.
Canada followed with over half (55%) reporting using it several days a week or daily.
Finally, the majority of children (60%) in Japan reported either never or rarely using it.
An intuitive relationship between social media use and virtual social interaction was
confirmed. Once this was accounted for, gender was no longer significant (an interaction
effect was tested between gender and virtual social interaction, but this was also insignificant). The number of cellular phones in a household was also positively associated tosocial media use. For transport, only having bus licenses was associated with greater social
media use. Again, this may reflect general findings related to adults’ bus time use (Clayton
et al. 2017).

Concluding remarks
This study examined general relationships between transport and children’s social interaction and demonstrated a number of significant findings. Our results show a relationship between children’s autonomy and a greater range of places for children to meet up
with friends increasing the frequency of face-to-face social interactions. Today, children
have different means of conducting social interaction than previous generations. As times
change, people wonder how these differences might be influencing their children’s lives. In
this study, we found that tools such as cellular phones were associated with greater virtualsocial interaction, but this was not found to be a negative influence on the frequency ofphysical present (face-to-face) social interaction or the range of places where children meetup. In fact, the relationship was found to be positive, suggesting that these means of communication may be facilitating and supporting such social interaction.
Interactions between social media use, independent mobility, and measures of virtualsocial interaction were also examined. The only association found was with bus licenses,
which may simply reflect how modern children (and adults) pass the time on the move.
The findings reported here suggest that concerns over modern communication tools
affecting physically present social interaction is less significant than the long-establishedconcerns over reduced children’s independent mobility. Previous research has found thatchildren’s independent mobility is related to positive physical wellbeing measures such as
overall physical activity (e.g. Schoeppe et al. 2013), this study finds that it is also linked toincreased social interactions, which is associated with improved child wellbeing.
From this and previous research, it seems that the ability to travel independently is associated with more social interaction. Social interactions can spur social support and social
capital associated with active and independent travel, suggesting a virtuous circle. Parents
seem to build their social networks through local trips with their children (Grannis 2011),
which again supports children’s independent travel. These licences to travel independently

13

2006

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

were also found to be positively related to travel satisfaction and life satisfaction in previous research (Waygood et al. 2018). As such, the outcomes do not necessarily lend themselves to policies, but to parental and societal practices as it relates to developing children’s
independent travel. Future work could examine whether different parental approaches suchas “restrictive” or “training” (Wridt 2010) affect children’s independent mobility outcomes.
For a greater understanding of what explains children’s independent travel, a numberof resources exist. Mitra (2013) suggested a framework for understanding such travel thatwas based on the socio-ecological model. Recent work by Buliung et al. (2017) find that
distance, gender, and traffic play a role in explaining such trips. Also in Canada, a study ofchildren’s independent travel for both weekday and weekend trips (Cervesato and Waygood2019) was explained primarily by distance and the built environment, but also having anolder sibling. Related to this research, Lin et al. (2017) highlight the importance of social
connections facilitating independent travel by children.
The direct consideration of the built environment and traffic was not taken into accountin this study. Previous research has found that different street designs can better facilitatechildren’s independence and social interaction (Biddulph 2012; Hüttenmoser 1995). Whentraffic increases, social connections with neighbors has been found to decrease in general(Appleyard 1980; Hart 2008; Sauter and Huettenmoser 2008). The street itself is often
identified as an important gathering point (Lim and Barton 2010; Morrow 2000). As such,
future work should aim to examine the role that street design, traffic levels, urban and lessurban environments play on children’s social interaction. Finally, children’s preferences
can be different in terms of wanting to meet up with friends. Some children may enjoy
spending time alone after a day at school, while others may enjoy spending time with theirfriends over their family.
Acknowledgements Financial support for this research was obtained through Grant (#2014-05335) fromthe Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA), and (2017-NP-199980) from theQuebec Government’s Fonds de recherche du Québec—Société et culture.
Author contributions EODW Led the development of the survey, the manuscript writing, analysis, andinterpretation. He was responsible for collecting data in Canada. MF Primary financing of the project, contributed to the development of the survey, and contributed to writing the manuscript. With Olsson, wasresponsible for data collection in Sweden. LO Contributed to the development of the survey and contributed
to writing the article. MF was responsible for collecting data in Sweden. AT Contributed to the developmentof the survey and the article and was responsible for collecting data in Japan.

Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors confirm that there are no conflict of interest.

References
Appleyard, D.: Livable streets: protected neighborhoods? Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 451(1), 106–117(1980)
Banerjee, T., Uhm, J., Bahl, D.: Walking to school the experience of children in inner city Los Angeles andimplications for policy. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 34(2), 123–140 (2014)
Barker, J.: “Are We There Yet?”: Exploring Aspects of Automobility in Children’s Lives, Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences. Brunel University, London (2006)
Barker, J.: ‘Driven to distraction?’: Children’s experiences of car travel. Mobilities 4(1), 59–76 (2009)
Berg, M., Medrich, E.A.: Children in four neighborhoods: the physical environment and its effect on playand play patterns. Environ. Behav. 12(3), 320–348 (1980)

13

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

2007

Biddulph, M.: Street design and street use: comparing traffic calmed and home zone streets. J. Urban Des.
17(2), 213–232 (2012)
Björklid, P., Gummesson, M.: Children’s Independent Mobility in Sweden. Trafikverket: The Swedish
Transport Administration, Stockholm (2013)
Buliung, R., Larsen, K., Hess, P., Faulkner, G., Fusco, C., Rothman, L.: Driven to school: social fears andtraffic environments. In: Walks, A. (ed.) Driving Cities, Driving Inequality, Driving Politics: The
Urban Political Economy and Ecology of Automobility, pp. 81–100. Routledge, New York (2015)
Buliung, R.N., Larsen, K., Faulkner, G., Ross, T.: Children’s Independent Mobility in the City of Toronto.
Travel Behaviour and Society, Canada (2017)
Carver, A., Salmon, J., Campbell, K., Baur, L., Garnett, S., Crawford, D.: How do perceptions of local
neighborhood relate to adolescents’ walking and cycling? Am J Health Promot 20(2), 139–147 (2005)
Cervesato, A., Waygood, E.O.D.: Children’s independent trips on weekdays and weekends: case study ofQuébec City. Transp. Res. Rec. 2673, 907–916 (2019)
Clayton, W., Jain, J., Parkhurst, G.: An ideal journey: making bus travel desirable. Mobilities 12(5), 706–
725 (2017)
CMQ: Atlas Statistique. Communauté métropolitaine de Québec (2016)
De Vos, J.: Analysing the effect of trip satisfaction on satisfaction with the leisure activity at the destinationof the trip, in relationship with life satisfaction. Transportation 46, 1–23 (2017)
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-W., Oishi, S.: New Measures ofWell-Being. Springer, Berlin (2009)
Freeman, C., Tranter, P.J.: Children and Their Urban Environment: Changing Worlds. Routledge, Upper
Saddle River (2011)
Fyhri, A., Hjorthol, R., Mackett, R.L., Fotel, T.N., Kyttä, M.: Children’s active travel and independent
mobility in four countries: development, social contributing trends and measures. Transp. Policy 18(5),703–710 (2011)
Grannis, R.: From the Ground Up: Translating Geography into Community Through Neighbor Networks.
Princeton University Press, Princeton (2011)
Hart, J.: Driven to Excess: Impacts of Motor Vehicle Traffic on Residential Quality of Life in Bristol, p. 126.
University of the West of England, Bristol (2008)
Helliwell, J.F., Putnam, R.D.: The social context of well-being. Philos. Trans R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci.
359, 1435–1446 (2004)
Hillman, M., Adams, J., Whitelegg, J.: One False Move… A Study of Children’s Independent Mobility.
Policy Studies Institute, London (1990)
Hjorthol, R.J.: The mobile phone as a tool in family life: impact on planning of everyday activities and caruse. Transp. Rev. 28(3), 303–320 (2008)
Holt, N.L., Spence, J.C., Sehn, Z.L., Cutumisu, N.: Neighborhood and developmental differences in children’s perceptions of opportunities for play and physical activity. Health Place 14(1), 2–14 (2008)
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B., Layton, J.B.: Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review.
PLoS Med. 7(7), e1000316 (2010)
Hüttenmoser, M.: Children and their living surroundings: empirical investigations into the significance ofliving surroundings for the everyday life and development of children. Child. Environ. 12(4), 403–413(1995)
Jones, A., Steinbach, R., Roberts, H., Goodman, A., Green, J.: Rethinking passive transport: bus fare exemptions and young people’s wellbeing. Health Place 18(3), 605–612 (2012)
Joshi, M.S., MacLean, M.: Maternal expectations of child development in India, Japan and England. J.
Cross Cult. Psychol. 28, 219–234 (1997)
Kamargianni, M., Polydoropoulou, A.: Gender differences in on-line social networking and travel behaviorof adolescents. In: 5th International Conference on Women’s Issues in Transportation (2014)
Kirby, J., Inchley, J.: Walking behaviours among adolescent girls in Scotland: a pilot study. Health Educ.
Behav. 113(1), 28–51 (2013)
Kyttä, A.M., Broberg, A.K., Kahila, M.H.: Urban environment and children’s active lifestyle: softGIS
revealing children’s behavioral patterns and meaningful places. Am. J. Health Promot. 26(5), e137–
e148 (2012)
Lancée, S., Veenhoven, R., Burger, M.: Mood during commute in the Netherlands: what way of travel feels
best for what kind of people? Transp. Res. A: Policy Pract. 104, 195–208 (2017)
Lim, M., Barton, A.C.: Exploring insideness in urban children’s sense of place. J. Environ. Psychol. 30(3),328–337 (2010)
Lin, E.-Y., Witten, K., Oliver, M., Carroll, P., Asiasiga, L., Badland, H., Parker, K.: Social and built-environment factors related to children’s independent mobility: the importance of neighbourhood cohesion
and connectedness. Health Place 46, 107–113 (2017)

13

2008

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

Lopes, F., Cordovil, R., Neto, C.: Independent mobility and social affordances of places for urban neighborhoods: a youth-friendly perspective. Front. Psychol. 9, 2198 (2018)
Lynch, K., Banerjee, T.: Growing up in cities. New Soc. 37(722), 281–284 (1976)
Makino, Y., Tagami, F.: Relations of social interactions to subjective well-being. J Stage 46(1), 52–57(1998)
Min, B., Lee, J.: Children’s neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain. J. Environ. Psychol. 26(1), 51–71 (2006)
Mitra, R.: Independent mobility and mode choice for school transportation: A review and framework for
future research. Transp. Rev. 33(1), 21–43 (2013)
Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., Handy, S.L.: The impacts of ICT on leisure activities and travel: a conceptual
exploration. Transportation 33(3), 263–289 (2006)
Mokhtarian, P.L., Papon, F., Goulard, M., Diana, M.: What makes travel pleasant and/or tiring? An investigation based on the French National Travel Survey. Transportation 42(6), 1103–1128 (2015)
Morris, E.A., Guerra, E.: Mood and mode: does how we travel affect how we feel? Transportation 42(1),
25–43 (2015)
Morrow, V.M.: ‘Dirty looks’ and ‘trampy places’ in young people’s accounts of community and neighbourhood: implications for health inequalities. Crit. Public Health 10(2), 141–152 (2000)
Park, N.: The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
591, 14 (2004)
Park, N., Huebner, E.S.: A cross-cultural study of the levels and correlates of life satisfaction among adolescents. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 36(4), 444–456 (2005)
Pretty, G.M., Conroy, C., Dugay, J., Fowler, K., Williams, D.: Sense of community and its relevance to adolescents of all ages. J. Commun. Psychol. 24(4), 365–379 (1996)
Prezza, M., Pilloni, S., Morabito, C., Sersante, C., Alparone, F.R., Giuliani, M.V.: The influence of psychosocial and environmental factors on children’s independent mobility and relationship to peer frequentation. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11(6), 435–450 (2001)
Romero, V.M.: Children’s views of independent mobility during their school travels. Child. Youth Environ.
20(2), 46–66 (2010)
Sauter, D., Huettenmoser, M.: Liveable streets and social inclusion. Urban Des. Int. 13(2), 67–79 (2008)
Schoeppe, S., Duncan, M.J., Badland, H., Oliver, M., Curtis, C.: Associations of children’s independent
mobility and active travel with physical activity, sedentary behaviour and weight status: a systematic
review. J. Sci. Med. Sport 16(4), 312–319 (2013)
Schwartz, S.H.: Cultural value orientations: nature and implications of national differences. Publishing
House of SU HSE, Moscow (2008)
Senbil, M., Kitamura, R.: The use of telecommunications devices and individual activities relationships. In:
82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2003)
Shaw, B., Bicket, M., Elliott, B.: Children’s Independent Mobility: An International Comparison and Recommendations for Action. Policy Studies Institute, London (2015)
Statistics Canada: Population of Census Metropolitan Areas. Statistics Canada, Government of Canada,
Ottawa (2017)
Tranter, P., Whitelegg, J.: Children’s travel behaviours in Canberra: car-dependent lifestyles in a low-density
city. J. Transp. Geogr. 2(4), 265–273 (1994)
Urry, J.: Mobility and proximity. Sociology 36(2), 19 (2002)
Verlet, D., Devos, C.: The main determinants for subjective well-being: a quest for the holy grail? Can governments enhance the perceived quality of life? In: Moller, V., Huschka, D. (eds.) Quality of Life andthe Millennium Challenge, pp. 193–223. Springer Science, Berlin (2009)
Waygood, E.O.D.: What is the role of mothers in transit-oriented development? The case of Osaka–Kyoto–
Kobe, Japan. In: Women’s Issues in Transportation 4th International Conference. Transportation
Research Board, Irvine California, pp. 163–178 (2009)
Waygood, E.O.D., Friman, M.: Children’s travel and incidental community connections. Travel Behav. Soc.
2(3), 174–181 (2015)
Waygood, E.O.D.: Transport and Child Well-Being: Case Study of Quebec City, Quality of Life and Daily
Travel., pp. 199–218. Springer, Berlin (2018)
Waygood, E.O.D., Kitamura, R.: Children in a rail-based developed area of Japan travel patterns, independence, and exercise. Transp. Res. Rec. 2125, 36–43 (2009)
Waygood, E.O.D., Susilo, Y.: Distinguishing universal truths from country-specific influences on children’ssustainable travel: a comparison of children in the UK and the Osaka regional area. J. East. Asia Soc.
Transp. Stud. 9, 15 (2011)
Waygood, E.O.D., Friman, M., Olsson, L.E., Taniguchi, A.: Children’s incidental social interaction during
travel international case studies from Canada, Japan, and Sweden. J. Transp. Geogr. 63, 22–29 (2017)

13

2009

Transportation (2020) 47:1987–2009

Waygood, E.O.D., Friman, M., Taniguchi, A., Olsson, L.E.: Children’s life satisfaction and travel satisfaction: evidence from Canada, Japan, and Sweden. Travel Behav. Soc. 16, 214–223 (2018)
Weller, S., Bruegel, I.: Children’s place in the development of neighbourhood social capital. Urban Stud.
46(3), 629–643 (2009)
Westman, J., Friman, M., Olsson, L.E.: What drives them to drive?—Parents’ reasons for choosing the car
to take their children to school. Front. Psychol. 8, 1970 (2017a)
Westman, J., Olsson, L.E., Gärling, T., Friman, M.: Children’s travel to school: satisfaction, current mood,and cognitive performance. Transportation 44(6), 1365–1382 (2017b)
Wridt, P.: A qualitative GIS approach to mapping urban neighborhoods with children to promote physicalactivity and child-friendly community planning. Environ. Plan. B 37(1), 129–147 (2010)
Zhu, J., Fan, Y.: Daily travel behavior and emotional well-being: effects of trip mode, duration, purpose, andcompanionship. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 118, 360–373 (2018)
Zwerts, E., Allaert, G., Janssens, D., Wets, G., Witlox, F.: How children view their travel behaviour: a casestudy from Flanders (Belgium). J. Transp. Geogr. 18(6), 702–710 (2010)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps andinstitutional affiliations.

E. Owen D. Waygood is an Associate Professor at Polytechnique Montreal and Université Laval, Quebec. He
has studied children’s travel since 2006 examining questions related to mode use and how it relates to various aspects of their lives including physical activity and social connections. Owen also publishes on various
other transport topics including links with the built environment, and information use to reduce climatechange impacts.
Lars E. Olsson is professor in psychology at Karlstad University, Sweden. A main focus of his research is on
travel behaviour and its consequences for daily life. A special interest has been on behaviour change, motivation, travel experiences, and subjective wellbeing across the life span.
Ayako Taniguchi is an associate professor in transport engineering at University of Tsukuba, Japan. She
applies psychology to urban transportation planning to induce people’s sustainable travel behavior, and isalso interested in social acceptance of autonomous vehicles.
Margareta Friman is a professor in psychology at Karlstad University, Sweden. She has conducted researchin transportation since the 90’s. Most of her research focus on service quality, travel satisfaction and subjective wellbeing among children, commuters and elderly.

Affiliations
E. Owen D. Waygood1· Lars E. Olsson2· Ayako Taniguchi3 · Margareta Friman2

Lars E. Olsson
lars.e.olsson@kau.se
Ayako Taniguchi
taniguchi@risk.tsukuba.ac.jp
Margareta Friman
margareta.friman@kau.se
1

Polytechnique Montréal, 2900 Edouard Montpetit Blvd, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada

2

Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden

3

Department of Risk Engineering, University of Tsukuba, 1 Chome‑1‑1 Tennodai, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki Prefecture 305‑8571, Japan

13