Free Range Kids? Using GPS-Derived Activity Spaces to Examine Children’s Neighborhood Activity and Mobility

Abstract

This study examines the neighborhood activity spaces (NAS) of 9-to 13-year-old children (n = 143) from seven schools in London, Canada. Data from Global Positioning System (GPS) loggers worn for 7 days were used to isolate and test measures for children's pedestrian-based neighborhood activity: the maximum distance traveled from home and relative time spent in neighborhood settings. Descriptive and linear regression analyses examined the influence of individual, perceptual, and environmental factors on neighborhood use and travel. Participants spent a large portion of their out-of-school time (75%) in their NAS. Although traveling far from home on occasion, 94.5% of children's time on average was spent within a short distance of home; participants spent little of their free time in broader neighborhood settings. School travel mode and independent mobility were among the strongest predictors of both distance traveled and time spent close to home. Perceptions of neighborhood safety, neighborhood type, and nearby land uses also influenced local activity.

The last free-range children? Children’s independent mobility in Finland in the 1990s and 2010s

“…Carver et al (2013) found that 26% of English and 33% of Australian children travelled to and/or from school on their own, whereas according to Shaw et al (2013), 67% of German children travelled without adult accompaniment. Less than 30% of children travel alone as reported in a Canadian study (Loebach and Gilliland, 2014), and 26% in a study from the USA (Surface Transport Policy Project, Transportation and Land Use Coalition and Latino Issues Forum, 2003). Portugal and Iran suggest even lower rates of CIM at 15% (Lopes et al, 2014) and 8% (Shokoohi et al, 2011), respectively.…”

“…The independent and active mobility of children is an outcome of a very complex set of developmental (Ahmadi, 2007;Burgmanis et al, 2014;Rissotto and Tonucci, 2002), familial (Barron, 2014;Jensen et al, 2014), sociocultural (Depeau, 2001;Malone and Rudner, 2011;Valentine, 2004), and environmental characteristics (Alparone and Pacilli, 2012;Mitra and Buliung, 2014;Villanueva et al, 2013), as well as the policy context (Fyhri and Hjorthol, 2009;Rudner, 2012). Individual and family characteristics that are affecting CIM include children's age, maturity and gender (Johansson, 2006), family structure, socioeconomic status, ethnicity (Loebach and Gilliland, 2014;Weir et al, 2006), gender of parent, and parent employment (Valentine, 2004;Witten et al, 2013). This includes matters regarding weight of school bags, convenience, families spending time together, and trip chaining (Johansson, 2006;O'Connor and Brown, 2013;Witten et al, 2013).…”

Using GPS and activity tracking to reveal the influence of adolescents’ food environment exposure on junk food purchasing

“…The study uses the trips to and from school because adolescents indicate that they have the most autonomy during these times. 24 This final set of trips for adolescents exposed to junk food were used for the final analysis, as a trip without exposure provided no opportunity to purchase junk food.…”

Orange Is the New Green: Exploring the Restorative Capacity of Seasonal Foliage in Schoolyard Trees

“…There are, however, strong suggestions as to the importance of trees and they may be the most important natural feature in restorative landscapes [28]. Children growing up in contemporary urban environments often have their daily access to play and natural environments restricted to their home, school and nearby street, effectively limiting their access to restorative environments [37]. …”