IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1

Research article
erd

The Dynamics of Social Interactions of Children Playing
around Rural Rivers in Japan
MASAYUKI NITTA*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Toyo University, Kawagoe, Japan
Email: nitta061@toyo.jp

YOSHIKI KUWABARA
Faculty of Agriculture, Yamagata University, Tsuruoka, Japan

MASAHIRO NAKAJIMA
Institute of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Fuchu, Japan
Received 19 February 2022

Accepted 22 April 2022(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract In Monsoon Asia countries, rivers have intimate bonds with rural communities,
which create diverse social interactions regarding community building such as recreation,
education, and tourism. Especially, children tend to play around rivers, which is considered
as one of the foundations of community building since playing fosters children’s placeattachment to the local rivers. However, the number of children playing around rivers has
been decreasing owing to expanding urbanization. This study aims to reveal 1) the
influences of river use by family members and neighborhoods on children’s river play, 2)
the dynamics of children’s social interactions in playing around rivers, and 3) the
emergence mechanisms of children’s social interactions in the play places. Questionnaire
survey (127 local children from 9 to 11 years old), participatory observation, and hiring
survey (49 local children from 9 to 11 years old) were conducted in the town of
Gujohachiman, the Gifu Prefecture, Japan. Social network analysis (SNA) was applied tothe observation data to examine the dynamics of social interactions in playing. As a result,river play frequency and preference of children were positively related to the frequency ofdaily use of rivers by their family members and neighborhoods. SNA showed that theinteraction density of children playing around the river gradually increased while repeatedly
fluctuating up and down. This dynamical change of interactions was caused by several
leaders. The two factors for the emergence of children’s social interactions were identified:introducing by the playgroup members and playing with caregivers. These results imply
that rural rivers have the function for children to expand their local interpersonal
relationships through playing, which are supported by local communities. Furthermore,children’s play places around rivers have the potential to become the social interface forrural and urban communities.
Keywords rural rivers, children, play places, social interactions, social network analysis,
environmental education

INTRODUCTION
In Monsoon Asia countries, rivers have intimate bonds with rural communities, which create
diverse social interactions regarding community building such as recreation, education, and tourism.
Especially, children tend to play around rivers (Senda, 1982; Kinoshita, 1992). However, children’swater play around rivers has been decreasing owing to expanding urbanization.
As described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, an outdoor play of children isessential for their sound development and it is required that the local communities support
children’s outdoor play towards sustainable community building in terms of their well-being.
Various effects have been pointed out for nature play, including river play, such as emotional
stability of children (Yoshinaga et al., 2006), improvement of athletic ability and intellectual abilityⒸ ISERD

46

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1

(Nakamura, 1999), an increase of independence (Kako, 2009), etc. Also, it is reported that playing
around rivers is effective in improving children's spatial cognitive ability (Onishi, 2000), deepening
their cognitive ability to living organisms (Ohgoshi et al., 2002; Ohgoshi et al., 2003), andimproving children’s social ability through interpersonal interactions (Sato and Takahashi, 2002;
Sato et al., 2004; Enomoto and Nakamichi, 2021). In addition, river play fosters children’s placeattachment to the local rivers, which leads them to nature conservation in the future (Satake andKamihogi, 2006). Therefore, river play is important not only for community development but also
for the conservation of river environments. So far, various studies have been conducted on thephysical structure and biological environments that support children's river play (Fujiwara andMaekawa, 2003; Osawa, 2005; Terauchi et al., 2006; Horiuchi et al., 2009; Kakudo and Nishiyama,
2009; Imanishi and Matsumoto, 2016; Hasegawa et al., 2017).
However, there is no study that examines children's playing in the river from a social aspect
and clarifies the dynamics of human interaction. It is important to quantitatively grasp the social
interactions of children and to examine the relationships between children's river play and the local
community, in order to conserve the children's river play in the future.
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study are to reveal 1) the influences of river use by family members andneighborhoods on children’s river play, 2) the dynamics of children’s social interactions in playing
around rivers, and 3) the emergence mechanisms of children’s social interactions in the play places.
METHODOLOGY
Study Area
The study was conducted in the Hachiman district of Gujo city (hereinafter called“Gujohachiman”), which is a rural area located in the middle of the Gifu prefecture, Japan (Fig. 1).
The east, west, and north side of Gujohachiman are adjacent to the mountainous area, and theresidential area is formed along the Yoshida River, which is an upper branch of the Nagara River.
The area is also well known as “Water Town” since the water sources such as springs and wells
have been maintained collectively by local communities in history.
Gifu Prefecture

Study Area

Fig. 1 Location of study
area

Fig. 2 The play places in the rivers in Gujohachiman

In the area, the river play of children was conserved as local culture. The local children playwith water mainly in three places around rivers: Kodara place, Shinbashi place, and Gakkobashi
place (Fig. 2). The three places are recognized as “play places” by the residents. Especially
Shinbashi place is a popular sightseeing spot of Gujohachiman for urban tourists, because the place
is known as “jumping spot,” where children jump by the top of the Shinbashi bridge (12m aboveⒸ ISERD

47

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1

water surface) into the Yoshida River. This place has been designated as one of the 100
Soundscapes of Japan by the Ministry of the Environment since 1996.
Data Collection
In order to collect the data for objective 1, Questionnaire survey was conducted to 127 students,
who are in 4th to 6th grade (aged 9 to 11 years old) at the local primary school, on 15 September,2010 (Table 1). The questionnaire survey was conducted at the integrated study classes. Duringchildren answered the questions, the teachers supervised them to secure the reliability of theanswers. The response rate was 100%. The respondents answered the 18 questions regarding daily
river play around rivers. In this paper, the results of 7 questions out of 18 questions were used: thepreference and frequency of river play (2 items), the living environments (3 items), social
interactions at playing with water (4 items). After the questionnaire, we conducted supplementary
hiring to twelve children regarding to their river play.
Table 1 Respondents of questionnaire survey (n=127)
Sex
Boys
Girls
Subtotal

Grade
5th
16
16
32

4th
22
20
42

6th
27
26
53

In order to collect the data for objectives 2 and 3, observation and hiring survey wereconducted on 29 local children from 9 to 11 years old from the 3rd to 5th September. The subjectsof the survey were selected by those who answered the questionnaire. During the children playing
around the three water play places, investigators recorded the number of children, the playing
behavior of each child, and the playing location with one-minute intervals until all children left theplay places. After the all children left the play places, the investigators conducted open-endedgroup interviews to them. The interview consists of the following questions:
Where do you play with water around rivers usually?

Why do you play there?
Have you ever played with an infant or adult, who you did not know before?
Analysis
In order to analyze the relationships between the preference and the frequency of children’s river
play and their living environments (objective 1), simple tabulation and cross-tabulation wereconducted on the data obtained by questionnaire survey. Secondly, the p-value was calculatedusing the results of cross-tabulation. These computations were done using the SPSS program,version 10.0.
As for objective 2, Social Network Analysis (hereinafter called “SNA”) was applied to theobservation data (Freeman, 2004; Nooy et al., 2012). The dynamics of children’s social networks
were analyzed by using density, which is an index of SNA. The density is calculated by using Eq.
(1) as follows:
(1)
Where
Di: Density of children’s social networks at the time ini: The number of children existing in the play places at the time i
mi: The number of children’s ties at the time iⒸ ISERD

48

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1

Density (Di) is an index of how close the social interchange between children playing in theplay places at the time i is. If the density is high, the children make relatively large groups to play
together. If the density is low, children play individually or in small groups.
As for objective 3, how children become acquainted with another child, infant or adult was
analyzed based on the observation data. Focusing on the matter of how the children’scommunication started, the emergence mechanisms of children’s social relationships in the playplaces were classified by the acquaintances’ attributes: child, infant, and adult.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Status of River Use of Children
Table 2 shows the preference and the frequency of river play of the subjects by sex. The ratio of
those who prefer river play was 91.3% in total. As a result of chi-square analysis, the ratio of boys,
who prefer river play (96.9%) was significantly higher than the ratio of girls (85.5%, p < 0.05). As
for the frequency of river play, the ratio of those who play with water more than once a week was
50.4% in total. As a result of chi-square analysis, the ratio of boys, who play with water more thanonce a week (67.7%), was significantly higher than the ratio of girls (32.3%, p < 0.001). Water playaround rivers was generally preferred by many children. In particular, it was found that boys tended
to prefer playing around rivers.
Table 2 Children’s preference and frequency of water play around rivers by sex
The number of children by theirpreference of river play (“prefer” vs“not prefer”) and its ratio*
Prefer
Not prefer

The number of children by their frequency of river play(“once a weelk or more” vs “less than once a week”) and
its ratio***
Once a week or more
Less than once a week

Boys (n=65)

63 (96.9%)

2 (3.1%)44 (67.7%)

21 (32.3%)

Girls (n=62)

53 (85.5%)

8 (14.5%)

22 (36.1%)

42 (67.7%)

Subtotal (n=127)

116 (91.3%)
11 (8.7%)
64 (50.4%)
63 (49.6%)
Significant difference is indicated by *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001, determined by chi-square test.

Table 3 Relationship between the experiences to get to know new persons during
river play and the number of members of river play
The experience of children to getting to know
new persons during river play

The number of children by the number of members to play witharound the river*With 1 or 2 members
With more than 3 members

Yes, I had experiences to getting to know new
31
36
persons during river play
No, I had no experience getting to know new
39
19
persons during river play
Significant difference is indicated by *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001, determined by chi-square test.

As for the number of members to play with around rivers, all children answered “playing withsomeone (friends or caregivers)”, which means no one played alone around rivers. As for theexperiences of children to getting to know new person during river play, 53.6% of the children(n=127) had experiences to getting to know new person during river play. Table 3 shows therelationship between the experiences to get to know new persons during river play and the numberof members of river play. As a result of chi-square analysis, the children, who play with more than
three members, tended to have the experiences to get to know new persons during river play,compared to the children, who play with two or three members (p < 0.05).
Table 4 shows the relationships between the daily river use of family members and neighbors
and children’s preference and frequency of river play. The children, whose family members andneighbors used the river in daily life, tended to prefer river play (95.5%), compared to those whosefamily members and neighbors did not use the river in daily life (86.9%, p < 0.05). Further, lookingⒸ ISERD

49

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1

at the frequency of playing in the river, 63.6% of children, whose family members and neighbors
used the river in daily life, answered that they played around the river for a week or more. On theother hand, the ratio of children, whose family members and neighbors did not use the river in daily
life, was 36.9%, significantly lower than that of children whose family members and neighbors
used the river in daily life (p < 0.001). Regarding this result, there were several opinions fromeleven children such as:“Since I was baby, my grandfather (or grandmother, uncle, aunt) went to rivers and played
together with me and he (or she) told me how to play around rivers”.
In addition, there were opinions from eight caregivers such as:“Because we all local residents played around rivers during childhood, so we know thatplaying with water is very fun and it is very important for child development”.
Thus, it is concluded that the daily use of rivers by family members and neighbors had apositive effect on children's preference and frequency of river play, and the children’s river play
was supported by the adults at home and in the neighborhoods.
Table 4 Relationships between daily river use of the family members and the neighbors andthe children’s preference and frequency of river play
The number of children by their The number of children by their frequency
preference of river play of river play (“once a weelk or more” vs(“prefer” vs “not prefer”) and its “less than once a week”) and its ratio***ratio*
Less than once
Prefer
Not prefer
Once a week or more
a weekSomeone of the family members
and neighbors uses the rivers in
63 (95.5%)
3 (4.5%)42 (63.6%)
24 (36.4%)
daily life (n=66)
None of the family members andneighbors use the rivers in daily
53 (86.9%)
8 (13.1%)
22 (36.1%)
39 (63.9%)
life (n=61)
Significant difference is indicated by *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001, determined by chi-square test.

Dynamics of Children’s Social Interactions in Playing Around Rivers
Fig. 3 shows the dynamics of the social interactions of 21 children played at the Gakkobashi placefrom 16:25 to 17:34. The density of the social interactions went up and down over time, whichmeans that children were playing while repeating gathering and dispersion. The interaction
networks of the children at each time from 16:40 to 17:10 are illustrated in Fig. 4. The black circle
with the alphabet indicates the individuals of the children (ID: from “a” to “u”) and the lines showthat they had interactions, which means playing together.
25

0.80

15

0.60

10

0.40

5

0.20

0
16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 16:45 16:50 16:55 17:00 17:05 17:10 17:15 17:20 17:25 17:30

0.00

Density

Number of children

20

1.00

Number of children
DensityFig. 3 Dynamics of children’s social interactions in playing at the Gakkobashi placeⒸ ISERD

50

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1a) Interaction network of children at 16:40b) Interaction network of children at 16:45

c) Interaction network of children at 16:47

d) Interaction network of children at 16:50e) Interaction network of children at 16:52

f) Interaction network of children at 17:06

g) Interaction network of children at 17:07h) Interaction network of children at 17:10

Fig. 4 Interaction network of children in the river playing at each time from 16:40 to 17:10
At 16:40, twelve children were playing and four playgroups were formed (Fig. 4a), and thedensity at this time was 0.21 (Fig. 3). Then, at 16:45, the playgroups changed, forming a bigger
group of eight children and two pairs (Fig. 4b), and the density was 0.45. Further, at 16:47 childⒸ ISERD

51

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1“d” started playing alone, so the group was dispersed (Fig.4c), and the density was decreased at
0.34. At 16:50, the two pairs (child ID: a, g, l, k) started playing with a group of seven children,
forming a large playgroup of 11 children (Fig. 4d), and the density increased at 0.83. Then, again,
the children were dispersed and the group was divided into four groups at 16:52 (Fig. 4e), and thedensity was 0.32 at this time. At 17:06, six new children appeared and started group play (Fig. 4f)
and the density was decreased at 0.30. At 17:07, as the two playgroups merged (Fig. 4g), thedensity increased at 0.75. Finally, the children formed two big groups to play and the density was
1.00 at 17:10 (Fig. 4h).
In this way, the children played while repeating gathering and dispersion, forming a larger
playgroup. Fig. 5 shows the integrated diagram of the interaction networks between 21 childrenthat occurred from 16:25 to 17:34. The thickness of the tie indicates the length of time to play with,and the longer the time, the thicker the tie. The ties between child b, d, h, i were very thick. These
children were the leaders among the playgroups. For example, they decided what kind of play andwhere to play next. Therefore, it can be said that the daily relationships of the children wereexpressed by quantifying the interactions among them that changed over time during river play.
In this section, it was found that the children gradually expanded their playgroups as they
repeatedly gathered and dispersed during river play.

Fig. 5 Integrated interaction networks of 21 children observed from 16:25 to 17:34
Factors for The Emergence of Children’s Social Interactions
Through the observation survey and hiring survey, two factors for the emergence of children’ssocial interactions were identified: (1) introducing by playgroup members and (2) playing withcaregivers.
(1) Introducing by playgroup members: From the results in the previous section, it was foundthat children gradually expanded their playgroups as they repeatedly gathered and dispersed during
river play. Regarding this social interaction processes, the following opinions were given by thethree children who were playing:“We all (local children) play usually in the three play places (Gakkobashi, Shinbashi, andKodara place). So local children playing with water around the rivers have many chances to knoweach other very well.”In addition, the following oral data were obtained from the four children:Ⓒ ISERD

52

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1

“When we find some friends in other playgroups during river play, we play together with allgroup members via the friends.”
Therefore, it can be said that there was a social exchange process by introducing to playgroupmembers. This process is modeled in Fig. 6. In the Gujohachiman, children's play places in rivers
are fixed, so children's playgroups appeared in close proximity when playing in the river. At thistime, when groups 1 and 2 appeared, if the member “a” and “b” were acquainted, they first left thegroup and had a conversation (Fig. 6). This formed a small play subgroup. Then, the children “a”
and “b” were invited to play together in each playgroup, and all of them played together to form alarge playgroup. Then, everyone became friends through river play together.
In this way, the cases that social interactions occurred through an introduction by playgroupmembers were observed 17 times during the observation survey. The reason why the children's
play group gradually expanded in the previous section was due to the introduction by playgroupmembers.
1st Stage

2nd Stage

Group 1

3rd Stage

Group 1aFormsubgroup

Friends

Play
togethera,bbGroup 2

Emergednew large
group

Group 2

RepeatingFig. 6 Social interaction process model by introducing by playgroup members(2) Playing with caregivers: The second is to play with caregivers. In this area, children were
often seen playing in the river, so visitors from outside the area, tourists, often played around therivers with their family members. From a viewpoint of the tourists, during the observation survey
in the Shinbashi place, social interactions from the toursts to the children were observed seventimes per hour. In addition, the following oral data were obtained from the ten tourists:“It looks very fun that the local children play with water dynamically and actively.”“I (or We) want to play together with them.”
On the other hand, it was also observed that children actively played with adults. When thechildren played with an adult, they could play, such as riding on adults’ backs or throwing them on
the water surface, which the children could not do with children. Once the children started to playwith an adult, who is a caregiver of another child, they all played together finally. This process wasshown in Fig. 7. The adult “c” is a caregiver of the child “a”, and once the child “b” started to playwith the adult “c” (the first stage in Fig. 7), the child “a” and “b” played with the adult “c” (thesecond stage in Fig. 7). Then The adult “c” introduced the child “b” to child “a” and they played all
together finally (the third stage in Fig. 7). This process was confirmed eleven times during theobservation survey.
1st Stage

Child
“a”
Child
“b”

FamilyAdult“c”

2nd Stage

Child
“a”
Child
“b”

3rd Stage

Adult
“c”

Child
“a”
Child
“b”

Fig. 7 Social interaction process model of playing with caregiversⒸ ISERD

53

Adult
“c”

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1

CONCLUSION
There were several findings from this study.
Firstly, river play frequency and preference of children were positively related to thefrequency of daily use of rivers by their family members and neighbors. Secondly, the SNA
showed that the interaction density of children playing around the rivers gradually increased while
repeatedly fluctuating up and down. Thirdly, the two factors for the emergence of children’s social
interactions were identified: introducing by the playgroup members and playing with caregivers.
In addition, although the hiring survey of this study was conducted in 2010, the authors also
conducted supplementary interviews with local children playing around the river in this area in
2016, and have confirmed that the children yet played around river dynamically and their social
interaction was formed through river play by introducing by playgroup members and caregivers(Nitta et al, 2017).
These results imply that rural rivers have the function for children to expand their local
interpersonal relationships through playing, which are supported by local communities.
Furthermore, children’s play places around rivers have the potential to become the social interface
for rural and urban communities, since the tourists were attracted by the children playing aroundthe rivers dynamically and social interactions have occurred.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was conducted with the cooperation of the teachers, the students, and the parents of theHachiman elementary school in the Gujohachiman. We would like to thank them for collaboration.
Also, this work is supported by the Toyo University Faculty of Science and Technology Policy
Research 2020.
REFERENCES
Enomoto, N. and Nakamichi, N. 2021. The relationship between motor ability, cooperative physical andsocial skills in young children. Japan Journal of Human Growth and Development Research, 2021 (91),24-32.
Freeman, C.L. 2004. The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science.
Createspace Independent Pub., 218.
Fujiwara, R. and Maekawa, T. 2003. The changes of playing environment of watersides in the three
generations. Journal of Rural Planning, 22, 253-258.
Hasegawa, Y., Hashimoto, K. and Takenaka, K. 2017. The influence of decision making to benefit of cultural
services by river of urban area. Landscape Research Japan Online, 10, 176-183.
Horiuchi, M., Fukamachi, K., Oku, H. and Okada, K. 2009. Early Showa period use of natural resources andnatural space in child play in a rural community in the western part of Shiga Prefecture, Japan. Journal of
the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 72 (5), 673-678.
Imanishi, A. and Matsumoto, A. 2016. Change of river use by children in Yodo River since 1945. Journal of
the Japanese Society of Revegetation Technology, 42 (1), 220-223.
Kako, S. 2009. What can children obtain from playing. Consultant, 244, 6-7.
Kakudo, H. and Nishiyama, M. 2009. On analysis of flow fields of a river for water activity preferred bychildren. Transactions of the Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and Rural Engineering, 77 (1), 1-6.
Kinoshita, I. 1992. A study on children’s contacts to nature in rural areas compared with urban areas: Part1
studies on aspects of the function’s for environmental study through children’s play in rural nature spaces.
Journal of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering, 431, 107-118.
Nakamura, K. 1999. The change of children’s play. Physical Education, 49, 25-27.
Nitta, M., Nakajima, M. and Senga, Y. 2017. The regional social system that supports the safety of children’s
diverse water play around rivers. Journal of Rural Planning Association, 36, special issue, 350-355.
Nooy, D.W., Mrvar, A. and Batagelj, V. 2012. Exploratory social network analysis with pajek; Revised andexpanded second edition. Cambridge University Press, 452.
Ohgoshi, M., Kumagai, Y. and Kagawa, T. 2002. A study of change in waterside play and cognition of plants
and animals by children. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 66 (5), 733-738.
Ohgoshi, M., Kumagai, Y. and Kagawa, T. 2003. The study of relationship between experiences in satoyamaⒸ ISERD

54

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-1

and recognition of animals and plants. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 67 (5),647-652.
Onishi, K. 2000. Children’s geography: Perspectives and directions. Japanese Journal of Human Geography,
52 (2), 149-172.
Osawa, S. 2005. Comparison of play and wildlife experiences of schoolchildren on waterside between inrural area and in residential urban area. Journal of Rural Planning, Issue Special, 24, 13-18.
Satake, T. and Kamihogi, A. 2006. Study of the attachment to the local waterfront. Journal of the JapaneseInstitute of Landscape Architecture, 70 (5), 663-668.
Sato, M., Nishide, K. and Takahashi, T. 2004. A study on children and environment through transition of
playgroups: A study on the interaction between children’s ways of becoming members of society andspace, Part 2. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 69 (575), 29-35.
Sato, M. and Takahashi, T. 2002. A study on the construction of relationships among children and thecoexistence of playgroups: A study on the interaction between children’s ways of becoming members ofsociety and space, Part 1. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 67 (562), 151-156.
Senda, M. 1982. Research on structure of children’s play-spaces by investigating primary scenes in memories
about playing. Architectural Institute of Japan, 322, 108-117.
Terauchi, M., Kaga, H., Shimomura, Y. and Masuda, N. 2005. Study on environmental factors to formchildren’s play in the outdoor space in 30s in the Showa era. Journal of the Japanese Institute ofLandscape Architecture, 69, 659-664.
Yoshinaga, M., Yokoyama, A. and Kinoshita, I. 2009. The play in the town and its psychological impacts onchildren’s daily life and health condition. Japanese Journal of School Health, 51 (3), 183-192.

Ⓒ ISERD

55