1

Individual and contextual factors contributing in geographical variations in risk-behaviour among young adults in Norway.

Sveinung EiksundResearch fellow, Department of Geography, NTNU Trondheim

Presentation at the SRA-E 15th Annual Conference ‘Innovation and Technical Progress: Benefit without Risk?’

Ljubljana, Slovenia. 11th – 13th September 2006

2

Outline

• Background and objectives• Traffic accident risk• Traffic accident patterns in Norway• Research methods• Results• Conclusions

3

Background

• Traffic risk is an important health risk

• Increased leisure time motorization, a consequence of wealth in an affluent society

• Strong focus on risk-reducing strategies in Norway

• Risit: Part of a extensive research programme on risk and safety in transport financed by the Norwegian Research Council

• Objective of this study:– describe differences in risk-culture affecting behaviour in traffic– approach high risk groups more efficient with risk reducing measures

4

Traffic accident risk• Causes and risk factors

• Explanations to differences in risk can be related to:– Physical-geographical– Socio-economical– Socio-cultural

• Road traffic accident risk can be divided into– System risk related to physical environment, the

vehicles and the road systems (underlying risk)– Risk related to perceptions, behaviour and attitudes

(culture)

• Risk-taking behaviour as risk-factors

5

Norway

6

Map 1:

Average rate for the period 1998 – 2004.

7

Dependent variable: Killed/injured per 10.000 (adjusted rate)Police districts

Model B Beta t Sig.(Constant) 4.793 (.471) 10.176 .000% in densely pop. area -.032 (.006) -.707 -5.000 .000

R Square .500Adj R Square .480

Urban population

8

Map 2:

Average rate for the period 1998 – 2004.

9

Road traffic and young people

• Many studies have shown highest rates for killed and serious injured in rural areas especially for young adults

• Higher rates in rural areas can relate to– Longer distances and higher speed limits– Less access to public transport– Driving as leisure time activity

• Higher rates for young people in general can be related to– Less experience / more mistakes– Higher risk tolerance and sensation seeking – Attitudes– Risk behaviour and peers risk behaviour

10

Road traffic and young people

• Many studies have shown highest rates for killed and serious injured in rural areas especially for young adults

• Higher rates in rural areas can relate to– Longer distances and higher speed limits– Less access to public transport– Driving as leisure time activity

• Higher rates for young people in general can be related to– Less experience / more mistakes– Higher risk tolerance and sensation seeking – Attitudes– Risk behaviour and peers risk behaviour

11

Research methods

• Questionnaire survey from 2004 among young adults aged 19-24 from (N=677) – 7 municipalities (predefined as 2 urban, 3 peri-urban, 2 rural)– Response rate 47 %

• Regression models– Dependent variables

• Self-reported speeding violations• Self-reported non-use of seat belts

– Control variables• Age, Sex, Education

– Independent variables• Attitudes (towards speeding and traffic rules and risk taking)• Behaviour in peer group (friends “accident history”)• Driving as a leisure time activity

12

Self-reported speeding violations

• Answered by 477 respondents (with drivers licence)• Measured with 4 specific questions on a scale 1 (never) – 5 (very often)• Average scores calculated for each individual

• Geographical gradient

AREA N Mean (Std)

Urban 147 2.5 (0.82)

Peri-urban 275 2.6 (0.78)

Rural 55 2.9 (0.91)

13

Self-reported speeding violations

Linear Regression Beta Sig.Peri-urban .094 .060Rural .181 .000 *** Adj. R Square .023(Constant) .000

14

Self-reported speeding violations

Linear Regression Beta Sig.Peri-urban .075 .114Rural .128 .007 **Age .100 .039 *Sex (male) .273 .000 ***Eduaction (primary) .088 .141Education (vocational) .227 .001 *** Adj. R Square .137Education (preperatory) .100 .149(Constant) .053

15

Self-reported speeding violations

Linear Regression Beta Sig.Peri-urban .075 .045 *Rural .083 .032 *Age .058 .134Sex (male) .161 .000 ***Education (primary) .048 .312Education (vocational) .087 .117Education (preperatory) .050 .367Attitude .541 .000 *** Adj. R Square .465Peer accidents .135 .000 ***Driving as leisure .099 .006 **(Constant) .398

16

Self-reported non-use of seat belts

• Answered by 505 respondents• Measured with 2 specific questions on a scale 1 (never) – 5 (very often)• Average scores calculated for each individual

• Geographical gradient

• Skewed distribution in dependent variable: Dichotomized

AREA N Mean (Std)

Urban 155 1.2 (0.54)

Peri-urban 290 1.5 (0.91)

Rural 60 2.0 (1.16)

17

Self-reported non-use of seat beltsLogistic Regression OR 95 % C.I.Urban 1,00 -2 Log likelih. 721,1Peri-urban 2,02 (1,33-3,06) Cox & Snell R2 .046Rural 4,61 (2,58-8,24) Nagelkerke R2 .065

18

Self-reported non-use of seat beltsLogistic Regression OR 95 % C.I.Urban 1,00Peri-urban 1,93 (1,25-2,96)Rural 3,78 (2,07-6,91)Female 1,00Male 2,57 (1,77-3,75)Education (university) 1,00 -2 Log likelih. 677,8Education (primary) 1,26 (0,58-2,72) Cox & Snell R2 .109Education (vocational) 2,01 (1,06-3,79) Nagelkerke R2 .154Education (preparatory) 1,12 (0,60-2,11)

19

Self-reported non-use of seat beltsLogistic Regression OR 95 % C.I.Urban 1,00Peri-urban 1,81 (1,16-2,84)Rural 3,11 (1,66-5,82)Female 1,00Male 2,17 (1,44-3,28)Education (university) 1,00Education (primary) 0,95 (0,42-2,13)Education (vocational) 1,29 (0,65-2,57)Education (preparatory) 0,87 (0,45-1,68)Attitude (continuos) 1,26 (1,08-1,48)Peer accidents NO 1,00 -2 Log likelih. 629,1Peer accidents YES 1,66 (1,12-2,46) Cox & Snell R2 .145Driving as leisure LOW 1,00 Nagelkerke R2 .204Driving as leisure HIGH 1,48 (0,97-2,26)

20

Conclusions

• There is a urban – rural pattern in traffic self-reported risk-taking behaviour among young adults.

• Attitudes, behaviour in peer groups and driving as leisure time activity contributes to explain variation in risk-behaviour in traffic.

• The urban-rural gradient in risk-behaviour is partly explained by the individual and contextual factors included in this study.

• Reduction of risk related to risk-taking behaviour can be targeted through enforcement or changes in attitudes towards road traffic safety.

• The higher risk-behaviour in rural areas seems to be part of strongly rooted cultures closely related to a rural lifestyle. Working towards changing this behaviour will probably challenge a rural lifestyle more than the urban.