Children's Rights in Local Government Transport Policies: Getting it Right Through Shifting Conventions - APO
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Children’s Rights in Local Government Transport Policies: Getting
it Right Through Shifting Conventions
Hulya Gilbert
University of South Australia, School of Art, Architecture and Design
hulya.gilbert@unisa.edu.au
State of Australian Cities Conference and PhD Symposium
30th November – 5th December, 2019
Perth, Western Australia
www.soac2019.com.auSOAC 2019
Children’s Rights in Local Government Transport Policies: Getting
it Right Through Shifting Conventions
Hulya Gilbert
University of South Australia, School of Art, Architecture and Design
Abstract: The private car is currently the most dominant form of transport among families with school-
aged children, yet we lack transport policies that address children’s mobility equity issues. On the
contrary, many transport policies consider the lack of car ownership as a disadvantage, as opposed to
developing strategies to reinforce and utilise this position towards more socially inclusive and
environmentally just mobilities. In the context of Western social norms, car-based mobilities of children
are generally seen as unavoidable outcomes of our modern society. In order to disrupt these views, we
need transport policies that fully recognise the equitable access to affordable sustainable mobility for
all age groups. This paper explores the general assumptions that guide various local government
transport policies and social practices including the expectation that children are best accompanied by
their parents (generally in a car) to be safe from car traffic when accessing everyday services. It
articulates how this neo-liberal view counteracts with children’s basic rights to have access to places
that support their needs for learning and playing and participating in civic life. Finally, the paper aims to
emphasise the importance of transport as a social function, in re-shifting the centre of expectations and
responsibilities for children’s mobility, from individuals and cars to the wider society through more
sustainable means. This is in light of the view that cars don’t afford freedom, they lead to mobility
injustice by creating dependencies for their owners while restricting the mobility freedom of others,
especially children.
Key words: car dependence; sustainable mobility; children’s rights; mobility justice
Introduction
The last few decades have seen a substantial growth in the number of school-aged children being
driven by car to access their everyday destinations. Contributing factors range from those relating to
urban form to those relating to social and economic conditions. For example, Australian cities are
typically characterised by low density and segregated land uses which privilege the car over other travel
modes. This is often exacerbated in the outer suburbs where the provision of services for public
transport and accessibility by walking and cycling is limited.
With regard to social and economic factors, changing social structures such as increased employment
rates for women and the growth in the number of both single-parent families and families where both
parents are working usually mean extremely tight schedules that necessitate a private vehicle (Fyhri et
al., 2011; Chatterton et al., 2015). Associated problems range from those specific to children’s health
and wellbeing to those related to the social and environmental quality of our cities. Despite this, the
critical relationship between children and sustainable mobility has received scant attention at the policy
level.
Children and families in the neo-liberalist car era
The social and economic elements of the late 20th Century car era share a substantial number of
commonalities with the core elements of neo-liberalism. We know that neo-liberalist agendas across
western societies have significant implications for the social and environmental functioning of our cities
in the form of decentralisation, reduced public spending and associated privatisation of public services
and infrastructure (Thompson and Maginn, 2012; Gleeson and Low, 2000). Mobility has significant
political importance in the way in which our cities function, as neo-liberalism and Fordism in fact share
many ideological principles (Walks, 2015).
The lives of families with children and their everyday mobilities have been particularly affected by this
neo-liberalist car era with the car dominating their travel modes when accessing childcare centres,
schools and various privately run extra-curricular activities. Lehner-Lierz (2003) describes this complex
travel patterns of families with children as the phenomenon of ‘islandisation’ that induces numerous
short trips. She outlines how children’s lives take place in islands separated by driving distances, such
as a home island, school island, sports island, ballet island and playing island (p. 131). She highlightsSOAC 2019 the importance of de-emphasising the ‘kilometres driven’ over the recognition of these short trips in transport planning discourses (p. 135). Another critical way in which this neo-liberalist era has manifested itself is the ideologic shift of traffic problems from being a social policy issue to an individual issue (Sauter, 2003). For example, de- politicisation and individualisation of traffic accidents became evident with children and their parents generally being the responsible parties, not the system (Sauter, 2003; Hillman, 2006; Low, 2013). Parusel and McLaren (2010) also criticise the political environment that endorses ‘traffic safekeeping’ as the responsibility of parents and children and the lack of political will to address the issues surrounding the dominance of cars. Similarly, granting children independent mobility has often been associated with irresponsible parenting or in some cases it is criminalised (Hillman, 2006; Acharya, 2016). This is highly problematic with the importance of social culture emphasised by Fujii and Taniguchi (2014) where sustainable travel modes are considered socially desirable values. Children’s mobilities in an age of disruption Over the last decade, a range of technology trends has dominated mobility discourses. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are perceived to provide greater safety, fuel efficiency and more productive use of travel time while system malfunction, data privacy and liability in the event of a crash have been highlighted as potential barriers to its adoption (Vij, 2019; Zmud and Sener, 2017). Though this technology is still at its foundational stage (Mladenovic, 2019), several studies have begun to predict higher rates of uptake of this type of mobility by families and children along with the elderly (Mladenovic, 2019; Lee and Mirman, 2018; Zmud and Sener, 2017; Haboucha et al., 2017). In their study to understand American parents’ acceptance of AVs to transport their children aged 0 to 14 years, Lee and Mirman (2018) found two distinct categories of parents; those in favour of and those opposed to its adoption. Those in favour of the technology did so because they liked to embrace the new, while those opposed to it raised concerns over the monitoring of children during the travel time, particularly about the use of child restraints when no adults were present in the car and regarding the monitoring of children after the trip ends. Similarly, another study in the U.S. exploring the factors that influence parents’ decisions to let their children travel in AVs without an adult, found that parents were concerned about the use of child restraints and also the security issues surrounding other people entering the vehicle without their consent (Tremoulet et al., 2019). While the presence of other children in the vehicle was seen as a reason for a willingness to use AVs to transport their children in this study (Tremoulet et al., 2019), other research has found that parents would still prefer human-operated vehicles to autonomous school buses (Anania et al., 2018). Micromobility such as shared bikes and e-scooters has also been an important trend over the last decade. Though their overall importance in replacing short car trips and supporting multi-modal trips is recognised, like AVs, their uptake in Australia compared to other countries has been limited due to a range of barriers such as entrenched car culture and a lack of government policy support (Meng et al., 2018; Fishman et al., 2014). Furthermore, regulatory issues such as a minimum age of 18 years for eligibility to hire and use these services (City of Adelaide, 2019) presents a barrier for wider uptake as it excludes school-aged children. Despite the important implications these trends indicate as a response to automobility, a number of uncertainties will need to be overcome for their disruptive potentials to be realised. For example, as a result of technological improvements regarding increased fuel efficiency, the demand is likely to increase and therefore private car usage will also (Hensher, 2008; Sorrell, 2015). Similarly, the possible unanticipated consequences of these technologies (e.g. AVs), such as social inequality has been discussed (Mladenovic, 2019) as has the importance of a comprehensive understanding of the overall benefits as well as burdens of these technologies for societies instead of considering to adopt them immediately (Mladenovic, 2019). The high cost of freedom to have a car Across the globe, the car often has been associated with freedom and quality of life in political discourses (Hillman, 2003; Wachs and Crawford, 1992). In the context of increasingly busy lifestyles, the use of the car to access daily destinations such as workplaces, shops, schools and recreational activities has become the norm and is seen as an essential asset to operate the work and social life.
SOAC 2019 It was stated that the convenience afforded by the car is important only because of the spatial and temporal constraints that the car itself has created (Sheller and Urry, 2000). In fact, automobility is the main reason that daily destinations such as home, business and leisure are separated by distances that can be overcome only by cars therefore, any freedom and flexibility afforded by car has a coercive nature (Urry 2007, p.120). This coercive nature of automobility is particularly evident in households with children and their entangled and tightly configured daily schedules (Wind, 2013) that are hard to conduct without the flexibility the car offers (Sheller and Urry, 2000). The social and spatial inequalities created by the vicious cycle of car-oriented systems have also been highlighted by other scholars (Delbosc and Currie, 2013; Low, 2012). This is particularly the case in the context of car users restricting the rights of the movement of non-car users like pedestrians and cyclists. For example, the ‘safety and security’ is usually cited as the main reason for driving. While the car provides safety and security for those in the car, the risks are externalized to others who do not drive (Urry 2007, p. 133). In the case of children, these risks are multiplied due to their limited social experiences and skills to negotiate traffic therefore their limited ability to see and be seen. Also, their developing bodies make them more susceptible to serious injuries in the event of a collision with cars. Central to the entire discipline of transport planning is the concept of social exclusion, not only as a result of social inequality but also as a result of distance and inadequate transport options (Currie et al., 2010; Hine, 2012; Lucas, 2012). Scholars have long debated the impact of car dependence on the loss of opportunities for non-motorised mobility and the associated social interaction and health-related benefits for individuals and societies. Similarly, the ‘right to drive’ and car-based mobility has been challenged due to its exclusive nature (Sauter, 2003; Urry, 2007) as well as the inclusion of the ‘lack of car ownership’ as a measure of disadvantage (Johnson et al., 2010). However, in reality, the spatial and social exclusion due to the lack of or inaccessibility of other transport options is often overlooked owing to the prevalence of car use across Australian societies. Recently, the role of positive mobility experiences in fulfilling citizenship rights has been highlighted. Spinney et al. (2015) assert that citizenship is more than a legal status as it has social and cultural elements in relation to societal membership and social norms. They then discuss the importance of the mobility experiences of individuals in constructing their social identities and citizenship. They question the meaning of citizenship if individuals have uncomfortable experiences of mobility in public and private places (p. 327). With this, they argue the importance of mobility experiences (and the places of transit) supporting individuals to exercise or unable to exercise their citizen rights. In the meantime, children and their families were highlighted as distinctive subjects of the spatial and social inequities that were generated by car privileging transport policies (Collins and Kearns, 2005). Lehner-Lierz (2003) contests the view of cars affording freedom and explained how it created new dependencies for women in the context of women generally being responsible for ‘escorting their children, grandchildren and other sick and older members of the family and neighbours’ (p.137). In the context of the complex employment and commute characteristics of dual-earner families with children, Schwanen (2007) elaborates on how fathers’ lifestyles and labor force participation were also affected by their responsibilities to chauffeur children, particularly to school and childcare. Despite the prevalent belief across the world that cars provide freedom and flexibility, it seems that cars may actually create a real threat to people’s freedom and right to move. This is because beliefs around the ‘right of the car’ feed into a vicious cycle of car-based systems where the car becomes an essential tool and (a right) to function. As a result, the spatial and social segregation exacerbates and social and environmental inequalities deepen as one’s right to move in a car restricts others’ rights of movement without a car and forces them to be in cars. As an alternative to the physical ownership of a car, mobility as a service (MaaS) is an important trend. This represents a shift away from a reliance on privately owned cars as MaaS enables a multi-modal system where a range of micromobility can be integrated with other shared mobility practices (Mulley et al., 2018). Undoubtedly this system would offer viable alternatives particularly for the inner suburban households to achieve a better mix of public transport, shared mobility and micromobility tailored to their needs without owning a car. Further research is needed to determine the possible uptake of this system for facilitating children’s everyday mobilities and the capacity of this system to deliver social and spatial equity (e.g. for families living in outer suburbs). The next section discusses children’s rights in the context of mobility and explores how children’s rights are regarded in transport policies.
SOAC 2019
Children’s rights in relation to mobility
The term ‘child friendly’ has been used to refer to the UNICEF Child-Friendly Cities Initiative that is the
embodiment of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) that was developed in 1989. This
definition asserts that a child-friendly city is committed to improving the lives of children (under the age
of 18) within their jurisdiction by realising their rights, including those related to their everyday mobilities
as articulated in the CRC (UNICEF, 2019).
More recently, literature has emerged to offer links between child-friendliness and sustainable mobility.
Tranter (2016) lists three reasons why active and public transport can be considered as child friendly:
‘children prefer them, children can use them independently, and when adults use them, this does not
make the city less child-friendly’ (p. 232). Similarly, Gill (2008) recognises walking, cycling and public
transport as child-friendly travel modes.
Broadly, the key aspects of children’s rights related to their movements in their local environments can
be listed as follows:
• Have access to quality social services
• Participate in family, cultural, city/community and social life
• Live in a safe secure and clean environment with access to green spaces
• Meet friends and have places to play and enjoy themselves
(UNICEF, 2019)
The predominant use of cars to transport children to their daily activities counteracts with these rights.
For example, children who are transported in cars for most of their activities are subject to the social,
emotional and mental problems associated with the loss of play opportunities as well as opportunities
to participate in civic life. This is because of the extended time spent in cars and also the loss of streets
and public places as play areas due to high volumes of high-speed car traffic (Gill, 2008; Gray, 2013;
O’Brien, 2003).
By contrast, active transport and public transport create numerous opportunities to exercise these
rights. Such non-motorised travel modes provide unique opportunities for physical activity, active play,
social interaction and social capital, environmental awareness and contact with nature (Gilbert et al.,
2017; Giles-Corti et al., 2010; Mackett and Paskins, 2008), as opposed to passively sitting in a car
where the surrounding environment is perceived as a backdrop.
Linking children’s rights to mobility, the UNESCO initiated project Growing Up in an Urbanising World,
lists both the positive and negative indicators for ‘child based environmental quality’ (Chawla, 2002). In
relation to neighbourhood environment, the positive indicators such as ‘safety and free movement’,
‘peer gathering places’, ‘varied activity settings’ and ‘safe green spaces’ all directly relate to children’s
mobility within their local environments. In contrast, ‘heavy traffic’, ‘lack of gathering places’ and ‘varied
activity settings’ indicate low environmental quality for children. ‘Social integration’ and ‘cohesive
community identity’ are also closely associated with children’s non-motorised mobility whereas ‘social
exclusion’ can be experienced by children who mostly travel by car as a result of the loss of opportunities
for social interaction (Chawla, 2002, p. 229).
More recently, the importance of equal and affordable access to sustainable mobility for all has been
included in the UN New Urban Agenda (article 34). Providing services in a wide range of areas including
sustainable mobility that is responsive to the rights and needs of children and youth have been affirmed
(United Nations, 2016).
Consideration of children in sustainable mobility policies
Transport policies and practices can play a critical role in modifying children’s car-based mobility
towards the child’s right to active and public transport based accessibility. However, despite the fact the
growing recognition of children’s rights and their capacities to be change agents across a wide range
of fields, transport policies do not seem to consider this area in detail.
Gilbert and colleagues (2018a) assert that children’s right to sustainable mobility is not commonly
considered in transport policies despite the acknowledgement of reduced rates of active transport
amongst school-aged children. Through a review of policies on child-friendly cities and sustainable
mobility, they found that there was little integration between Australian local government policies on
children and sustainable mobility. They explained that within the child and youth-friendly guidelines ofSOAC 2019 local governments, the focus has been primarily on health and education with relatively little addressing children’s mobility rights and needs without a car. This then leads to where most social services such as schools, childcare centres and sports clubs operate from a point where the spatial and temporal constraints of automobility (Sheller and Urry, 2000) are reinforced e.g. choice of location, starting times for after school activities, car parking provision based on car-based mobility (Gilbert et al., 2018b). The remainder of this section highlights the other major gaps in local transport policies concerning children’s mobilities. Journey to primary school as the major focus Many transport policies in Australia consist of objectives and refer to guidelines for the development of active transport plans for schools with recognition of the reduced rates of walking and cycling amongst children. Though this is an important step towards sustainable mobility, the focus of these travel plans is usually journey to school (primary) and their adoption by schools is optional (Gilbert et al., 2018b). The daily lives of children extend to various non-school destinations such as sports grounds, parks, shops and a wide range of venues for extra-curricular activities. Therefore, the ‘journey to school’ is not the most significant journey for many families with children (Hjorthol and Fyhri, 2009; Carver et al., 2013). Marginalised teenagers In line with the ‘journey to primary school’ being the main focus regarding children’s mobility, secondary school-aged children’s travel patterns and mobility needs are not commonly considered in local transport policies (Gilbert et al., 2018a). In the context of global trends of younger generations delaying their acquisition of a driver’s licence and a car (Delbosc and Currie, 2013), the mobility needs of this age group are particularly important. This is not only due to this age range being the final stage before being eligible for driving, but in relation to travel behaviour being pre-cognitive and highly habitual (Schwanen et al., 2012; Chatterton et al., 2015). As such, these years are critical for the formation of sustainable travel behaviour and the marginalisation of this age group in the local transport policies is highly problematic. Displacement of the responsibility for traffic safety As previously stated, the neo-liberal car era saw the changing conceptions of the responsibility of traffic problems. In many Australian cities, car users have disproportionate priorities and advantages over non-car users. This perspective is well embedded in the transport policy and practice in Australia. Sturup and colleagues (2013) describe Australian transport systems as ‘path-dependent’ meaning that various practices and rationalities embedded in it are used to maintain the current system that operates mostly based on private cars (p. 113). For example, ‘risk management practices’ within current transport systems emphasise the role of individuals and their behaviours rather than the system itself (Sturup et al., 2013). Concerning children’s mobility, it is a common viewpoint that it is the responsibility of parents to protect them from traffic accidents as opposed to the societal responsibility as experienced in some other cultures such as Japan (Malone, 2012). Sheller and Urry (2000) also illustrate the unjustified supremacy of the car due to its high speed. They explained that anything moving less slowly such as ‘pedestrians, children going to school or trucks collecting garbage have become obstacles for cars’ (p. 745). In response to the general Western norms that associate children’s independent mobility with irresponsible parenting and high risk-taking, Shaw et al. (2015) called for an action to include ‘children’s independent mobility’ as an indicator of road safety, not the other way around. Across the globe, road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for people aged 5-29 years (WHO, 2018). Road safety campaigns are widely employed across Australia as a response to these concerns around traffic safety and car crashes. However, it has been argued that these campaigns and programs are great tools to legitimise the car culture while successfully ‘securing the acceptance and status of car’ (Montero, 2016, p. 172). Emphasis on driver’s licence In terms of the car and social disadvantage, many transport policies also draw links between limited mobility and social disadvantage as a result of not having a driver’s licence. It was stated that this assumption undermines the importance of the right to sustainable travel and the right to choose not to get a driver’s licence and a car (Currie et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2010; Gilbert et al., 2018a). This approach also implies the assumption that getting a driver’s licence is a standard and an essential part of growing up.
SOAC 2019
For example, the ‘Licence to Work’ program which has been recently announced in South Australia
provides fully funded, supervised driving lessons during school hours to make it easier to gain a driver’s
licence. This program asserts direct links between holding a driver’s licence and independence and
future employability for secondary school students (RAA, 2018).
Unpacking the assumptions underlying transport policies
Rapid urbanisation continues to put major social and environmental pressures on our cities and
transport remains in the centre of these issues. Local governments in particular play a critical role in
promoting sustainable mobility within their council areas. By and large, each local government produces
a transport plan that identifies the best set of strategies and actions to manage these challenges. In
terms of children and mobility, again the local government is probably the most significant within the
three-tier government structure in addressing the needs and rights of their younger residents by fully
recognising the right to access affordable sustainable mobility (Gilbert et al., 2018a).
As stated above, policies and practices related to children’s mobility needs often operate from the point
of car-based mobility and accessibility. It is important to have a closer look at these assumptions to
ensure that the strategies developed to promote sustainable mobility do not undermine children’s basic
rights to access their everyday destinations through sustainable means. Identifying and understanding
the assumptions that guide the development of such policies is also crucial for the process of successful
change as the definitions of both the problems and the solutions are framed through these assumptions
(Low and O’Connor, 2013).
In terms of the context of transport policies across Australia, various socio-economic attributes are
evident. These include high rates of car ownership and car-based accessibility by the majority of the
population. As previously stated, the minority who have no access to a car whether due to not having
a driver’s licence or a car or not having the physical capacity to drive due to sickness and old age,
transport policies tend to consider these groups ‘disadvantaged’.
Taken together these conditions point out a set of inherent assumptions that exist across the transport
planning discourses in Australia:
• Children need to be accompanied by their parents when accessing school and other services,
most realistically by driving
• Not having access to a car is a disadvantage
• Journey to school (mainly primary) is the most important travel pattern for children
• Holding a driver’s licence is an important and necessary stage to achieve independent
mobility
These assumptions then tend to serve the already deep-rooted ‘car-based mobility’ culture and the
associated detrimental problems related to public health and safety and social and environmental
sustainability, as described with its ‘path-dependent’ nature (Sturup et al., 2013). In addition, these
assumptions continue to undermine children’s and young people’s right to be able to move around their
neighbourhoods without a car.
Future, what it should be?
There is increasing concern over the impact of the contemporary lifestyles of children on the loss of
their independent mobility and the opportunity to play and explore their local environments as well as
the opportunity to have regular contact with nature. This impacts upon children’s physical, social,
emotional and mental development. It also directly impacts upon our planet in terms of increased
transport related carbon emissions.
How else could children relate to their environments? What is the role of transport policies to make this
interaction between children and their environment ethical, equitable, socially and environmentally just
while fulfilling children’s mobility rights? What would an alternative scenario look like to ensure that
children can live in a world where their interactions with their human and non-human surroundings are
not shielded by a car? For example, with the perception that driving is not an automatic human right
(Sauter, 2003), what if the above assumptions were reversed to the following:
• It is not a parental responsibility to accompany children throughout their everyday mobilities
• The car is not an option for children when accessing daily destinations
• Journey to school is only a small part of children’s everyday mobilitiesSOAC 2019
• The mobility needs of secondary school-aged children are vital
• Holding a driver’s licence or accessing a car is not relevant for one’s independent mobility and
children would not automatically transition to the driver’s licence/car ownership
Undoubtedly, these assumptions would significantly alter the aims and objectives particularly the
conceptualisation of accessibility within the local government transport policies. Below, I focus primarily
on the three aspects of local transport policies, namely physical and social infrastructure, regulation and
land use changes.
Physical and social infrastructure related changes
In relation to physical infrastructure and relevant budget allocations, there would be a major shift in the
priorities for building and maintaining safe walking and cycling paths and associated infrastructure such
as green spaces, trees, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, bike storage and maintenance stations,
public showers and changing rooms. For example, schools and other destinations frequently visited by
families with children would all need to be accessible by sustainable modes.
Similarly, access to public transport infrastructure through active transport would be an important priority
to ensure smoother intermodality. Unique opportunities would emerge to convert several car parks
around schools into public places that contribute to the safe active travel and active play network.
Furthermore, various urban design measures related to children (such as the provision of child-friendly
places, child-friendly wayfinding infrastructure) would advance.
In terms of social infrastructure and educational programmes, greater emphasis would be placed on
promoting sustainable mobility for children, paralleling the practices in countries like the Netherlands
and Germany (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003). These programs would acknowledge the changing (not
decreasing) mobility needs of different age groups (pre-school, primary school and secondary school)
for more effective strategies. For example, while the programmes for pre-schoolers might include basic
riding skills, the focus would change towards active transport in high volume traffic, traffic regulations,
public transport use as the age increases.
More importantly, for a community-wide success, these educational programs would not only target
children but recognise the importance of other individuals and institutions constructing the social lives
of children e.g. parents, teachers, schools, sports clubs, various extra-curricular activity providers,
workplaces and so on.
Regulatory changes
In terms of the regulatory changes, speed limits would be the main candidate for an overhaul. Given
the increased number of children on their feet and bikes or public transport, major reductions would
apply to the speed limits. New speed limits would be optimal for mixing vehicles with children’s active
transport (up to 30km/h across the city) and there would be an increased number of car-free zones.
The centre of legal responsibilities and social expectations for children’s mobility (and traffic safety)
would shift from the individuals and their cars to wider society and system. The privileges of car driving
would be diffused. Consequently, there would be stricter conditions to acquire a driver’s licence and
ongoing mandatory educational programmes for drivers.
There are also several areas with relevance to the operation of local governments but outside their
jurisdiction such as major public transport services and the way they are regulated. However,
advocating to senior governments (and non-government organisations) on behalf of their municipalities
is an important function of local governments. Through the set of new assumptions guiding the work of
local governments in the transport planning space, advocacy towards the provision of cleaner, safer,
more frequent, affordable and accessible public transport would strengthen while the cases for car-
based infrastructure would weaken.
Land use related changes
Land use policies that are closely linked to transport policies would be revolutionised towards closer
proximity to, and non-car-based connections between, homes, workplaces and recreational places.
There will be stronger advocacy by local government and local communities to ensure that the location
and overall design of housing estates, schools, libraries, community centres and other services are
responsive to the renewed needs of accessibility by sustainable travel modes. Simultaneously, the
functioning of many child-related organisations such as sports clubs, venues for music, dance, drama
and so on would need to make spatial (e.g. local venues only for after school sports) and temporal
changes (e.g. starting times taking into account of non-car-based access). Eventually, the density ofSOAC 2019 these institutions and venues would increase and they would all need to operate on the active transport scale with smaller catchment areas. Conclusion Above is only a quick preview of a future society that is built on the premise that private cars not being readily available when accessing children’s daily activities. Since the features listed above interact with each other and a wide range of other external variables, such change would trigger wider changes and continue to reinforce its own existence, in the same way that the supply and demand dynamics of the self-expanding car-based mobility culture as described by Urry (2007, p. 206). Despite the prevalent belief that cars are essential for enabling children’s complex mobilities, the core features of automobility (e.g. spatial and temporal constraints) and neo-liberalism (e.g. individualism) are actually significant forces shaping this complexity which is characterised by tightly connected and cramped schedules. Automobility also poses a direct threat to children’s basic rights as its infrastructure, especially high-speed roads, threatens children’s safety and limits their everyday freedoms which is critical for their development. Although the new mobilities discussed earlier in the paper are promising in terms of reducing the environmental impact of children’s everyday mobilities, in the absence of solid political support, their adoption by a critical mass of families in the immediate future seems unlikely. More importantly, further research is needed to determine the capacity of these new mobilities to support children’s rights as discussed in this paper as the recognition of children’s rights in these new mobilities would be important for them to successfully disrupt automobility. Children’s mobility experiences within their local environments provide a unique representation of our multifaceted mobility challenges and offer us unique paths to address these challenges. Therefore, they have a significant potential to guide transport policies that aim to address the mobility needs of our changing cities. For this, it is critical that transport policies are grounded in an in-depth understanding of children’s specific mobility needs and rights to avoid the assumptions with the unintended outcome of conforming to the already entrenched car culture amongst families with children. In the context of pressing social and environmental issues due to automobility, there is an urgent need to move away from the current assumption that the car is necessary to function in modern societies and car-based accessibility is a norm. Assuming no children have access to a car might be difficult to grapple within the context of well- established car-dependent communities across Australia, at least in the short term. However, that should not get in the way of imagining a better future where there are fewer private cars carrying children to their everyday destinations. Even though it is the case that currently most children have access to a car and travel by car, planning and thinking as if they don’t would open up many possibilities and opportunities which would accelerate progress towards less private car usage and the associated, wide- ranging benefits. Policies on local environments need to actively support parents by promoting the physical and social conditions they require to reduce their car use to transport their children. Their concerns over safety, their special needs created by complex lifestyles as parents, their fears about appearing as a ‘neglecting parent’ all need to be addressed to enable this change. Local transport policies, due to their centrality within multidisciplinary fields, have the capacity to facilitate the concerted approach needed to address these challenges in an equitable and socially and environmentally just way. References Acharya, M. (2016) Parents fined for letting kids walk to school unsupervised, SBS News, viewed 10 June 2018, . Anania, E.C., Rice, S., Winter, S.R., Milner, M.N., Walters, N.W. and Pierce, M. (2018) Why people are not willing to let their children ride in driverless school buses: A gender and nationality comparison’, Social Sciences, 7(3). doi: 10.3390/socsci7030034. Carver, A., Timperio, A. and Crawford, D. (2013) Parental chauffeurs: what drives their transport choice?, Journal of Transport Geography, 26, 72–77.
SOAC 2019
Chatterton, T., Williams, D., Marsden, G., Mullen, C., Anable, J., Docherty, I., … Doughty, K. (2015)
Flexi-mobility: Helping local authorities unlock low carbon travel?. Paper presented at University
Transport Study Group (UTSG) 47th Annual Conference, January 2015, London, United Kingdom.
Chawla, L. (2002) Growing up in an urbanising world. London: UNESCO and Earthscan Publications.
City of Adelaide. (2019) E-scooters, viewed 9 August 2019,
.
Collins, D. C. A. and Kearns, R. A. (2005) Geographies of inequality: Child pedestrian injury and
walking school buses in Auckland, New Zealand’. Social Science and Medicine, 60(1), 61–69. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.015.
Currie, G., Richardson, T., Smyth, P., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hine, J., Lucas, K., Morris, J., Kinnear, R.
and Stanley, J. (2010) Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and
well-being in Melbourne - Updated results, Research in Transportation Economics, 29(1), 287–
295. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.036.
Delbosc, A. and Currie, G. (2013) Causes of youth licensing decline: a synthesis of evidence,
Transport Reviews, 33(3), 271–290.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., and Mazzei, A. (2014) Barriers to bike sharing: An analysis
from Melbourne and Brisbane, Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 325–337. doi:
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.005.
Fujii, S. and Taniguchi, A. (2014) Theoretical underpinnings of practical strategies for changing travel
behaviour, in: Gärling T., Ettema D., Friman M. (Eds.) Handbook of Sustainable Travel, Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 151-162. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7034-8.
Fyhri, A., Hjorthol, R., Mackett, R. L., Fotel, T. N., and Kyttä, M. (2011) Children’s active travel and
independent mobility in four countries: Development, social contributing trends and measures,
Transport Policy, 18(5), 703–710.
Gilbert, H., Pieters, J. and Allan, A. (2017) Unlocking the social and environmental benefits of child
friendly places through active travel and active play. Paper presented at State of Australian Cities
Conference 28–30 November 2017, Adelaide.
Gilbert, H., Whitzman, C., Pieters, J., and Allan, A. (2018a) Children’s everyday freedoms: Local
government policies on children and sustainable mobility in two Australian states, Journal of
Transport Geography, 71, 116-129. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.07.007.
Gilbert, H., Pieters, J. and Allan, A. (2018b) Families, children and car: the environmental cost of
chauffeuring children. Paper presented at Australasian Transport Research Forum Conference, 30
October-1 November 2018, Darwin, .
Giles-Corti, B., Foster, S., Shilton, T., and Falconer, R. (2010) The co-benefits for health of investing
in active transportation, New South Wales public health bulletin, 21(6), 122–127.
Gill, T. (2008) Space-oriented children’s policy: Creating child-friendly communities to improve
children’s well-being, Children and Society, 22(2), 136–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-
0860.2007.00139.x.
Gleeson, B. and Low, N. (2000) Revaluing planning rolling back neo-liberalism in Australia, Progress
in Planning, 53(2), 83–164. doi: 10.1016/S0305-9006(99)00022-7.
Gray, P. (2013) The play deficit, Aeonmagazine.com, viewed 30 June 2018,
.
Haboucha, C. J., Ishaq, R. and Shiftan, Y. (2017) User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles,
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 78, 37–49. doi:
10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.010.
Hensher, D. A. (2008) Climate change, enhanced greenhouse gas emissions and passenger
transport – What can we do to make a difference?, Transportation Research Part D, 13(2), 95–
111. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2007.12.003.
Hillman, M. (2003) The relevance of climate change to future policy on walking and cycling, in R.
Tolley (Ed.) Sustainable Transport, Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments,
CRC Press ; Woodhead Pub., Boca Raton, FL : Cambridge, England, pp. 20–31.
Hillman, M. (2006) Children’s rights and adults’ wrongs, Children’s Geographies, 4(1), 61–67. doi:
10.1080/14733280600577418.
Hine, J. (2012) Mobility and transport disadvantage, in: M. Grieco and J. Urry (Eds.), Mobilities: New
perspectives on transport and society, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 21-40.SOAC 2019 Hjorthol, R. and Fyhri, A. (2009) Do organized leisure activities for children encourage car-use?, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(2), 209–218. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2008.11.005. Johnson, V., Currie, G. and Stanley, J. (2010) Measures of disadvantage: Is car ownership a good indicator?, Social Indicators Research, 97(3), 439–450. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9510-1. Lee, Y. C. and Mirman, J. H. (2018) Parents’ perspectives on using autonomous vehicles to enhance children’s mobility, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 96, 415–431. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.10.001. Lehner-Lierz, U. (2003) The role of cycling for women, in: R.Tolley (Ed.) Sustainable Transport, Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments, CRC Press ; Woodhead Pub., Boca Raton, FL : Cambridge, England, pp. 123–143. Low, N. and O’Connor, K. (2013) ‘The dilemma of mobility’ in: N. Low, (Ed.) Transforming Urban Transport: The Ethics, Politics and Practices of Sustainable Mobility. Mobility. Routledge, New York: pp. 3-25. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203083864. Low, N., ed. (2013) Transforming Urban Transport: The Ethics, Politics and Practices of Sustainable Mobility. Routledge, New York. doi: 10.4324/9780203083864. Lucas, K. (2012) Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?, Transport Policy, 20, 105–113. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013. Mackett, R. L. and Paskins, J. (2008) Children’s physical activity: The contribution of playing and walking, Children and Society, 22(5), 345–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2007.00113.x. Malone, K. (2012) Walking home from kindergarten should be child's play. Melbourne: The Age, 29 Feb, viewed 10 May 2019, . Meng, L., Berry, S., Somenahalli, S., and Allan, A. (2018) Identifying barriers in shared mobility implementation, a review (abridged). Paper presented at Australasian Transport Research Forum 2018 Proceedings. Mladenović, M. N. (2019) How should we drive self-driving vehicles? Anticipation and collective imagination in: Finger M., Audouin M. (Eds.) The Governance of Smart Transportation Systems, The Urban Book Series, Springer, Cham, pp.103-122. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-96526-0_6. Montero, K. (2016) Negotiating the interface: The complexities of exercising road safety ‘responsibility and choice’ on Melbourne’s fringe in: Kelly P., Pike J. (Eds.) Neo-Liberalism and Austerity and the Moral Economies of Young People’s Health and Well-being, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 161- 178. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-58266-9_9. Mulley, C., Nelson, J. D. and Wright, S. (2018) Community transport meets mobility as a service: On the road to a new a flexible future, Research in Transportation Economics. 69, 583–591. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2018.02.004. O’Brien, C. (2003) Transportation that’s actually good for the soul, National Center for Bicycling and Walking (NCBW) Forum (Canada), 54, 1-13. Pucher, J. and Dijkstra, L. (2003) Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from The Netherlands and Germany, American journal of public health, 93(9), 1509–1516. Royal Automobile Association (RAA). (2018) $350,000 program to help young South Australians get their licence, viewed 16 Jan 2019, . Sauter, D. (2003) Perceptions of walking–ideologies of perception, in R. Tolley (Ed.) Sustainable Transport, Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments, CRC Press ; Woodhead Pub., Boca Raton, FL : Cambridge, England, pp. 200–209. Schwanen, T. (2007) Gender differences in chauffeuring children among dual-earner families, Professional Geographer, 59(4), 447–462. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00634.x. Schwanen, T., Banister, D. and Anable, J. (2012) Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: the case of low-carbon mobility, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 522–532. Shaw, B., Bicket, M., Elliott, B., Fagan-Watson, B., Mocca, E. and Hillman, M. (2015) Children’s Independent Mobility: an international comparison and recommendations for action. Policy Studies Institute. . Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (2000) The city and the car, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 737–757. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.00276.
SOAC 2019
Sorrell, S. (2015) Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and approaches,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47(C), 74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.002.
Spinney, J., Aldred, R. and Brown, K. (2015) Geographies of citizenship and everyday (im)mobility,
Geoforum, 64, 325–332. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.04.013.
Sturup, S., Low, N., Rudner, J., Babb, C., Legacy, C., and Curtis, C. (2013) Institutional barriers and
opportunities, in: N. Low, (Ed.) Transforming Urban Transport: The Ethics, Politics and Practices
of Sustainable Mobility. Routledge, New York, pp. 111-128. doi: 10.4324/9780203083864.
Thompson, S. and Maginn, P. (2012) Planning Australia: An Overview of Urban and Regional
Planning. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139197205.
Tranter, P. (2016) Children’s play in their local neighborhoods: Rediscovering the value of residential
streets in: Evans B., Horton J., Skelton T. (Eds.) Play and Recreation, Health and Wellbeing.
Springer, Singapore, pp. 211-236. doi: 10.1007/978-981-4585-96-5_37-1.
Tremoulet, P.D., Seacrist, T., Ward McIntosh, C., Loeb, H., DiPietro, A. and Tushak, S. (2019)
Transporting children in autonomous vehicles: An exploratory study. Human Factors, 41(1), 1-10.
UNICEF. (1989) Convention on the Rights of Child, viewed 25 January 2015,
.
United Nations. (2016) New Urban Agenda, viewed 13 February 2018, .
Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge, England: Polity.
Vij, A. (2019) Understanding consumer demand for new transport technologies and services, and
implications for the future of mobility, in Biloria N. (Ed.) Data-driven Multivalence in the Built
Environment. S.M.A.R.T. Environments. Springer, Cham, pp. 91–107. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-
12180-8_5.
Wachs, M. and Crawford, M. eds. (1992) The car and the city: The automobile, the built environment,
and daily urban life, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Walks, A. (2015) Stopping the ‘War on the car’: Neoliberalism, Fordism, and the politics of
automobility in Toronto, Mobilities, 10(3), 402–422. doi: 10.1080/17450101.2014.880563.
Wind, S. (2013) The ‘elastic household’ – towards a framework for understanding how households
with children cope with mobility in everyday life. Paper presented at Differential Mobilities
Conference, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, May 8-11.
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2018) Road Traffic Injuries, viewed 17 May 2019,
Zmud, J. P. and Sener, I. N. (2017) Towards an understanding of the travel behavior impact of
autonomous vehicles, in: Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 2500–2519. doi:
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.281.You can also read
