Advertisement

Hypermobile, Sustainable or Safe? Imagined Childhoods in the Neo-liberal Transport System

  • Tanja JoelssonEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Research on children’s mobility assumes that children’s independent mobility is important for children’s development, health and well-being, while a decline in children’s independent mobility has occurred. The chapter analyses how children are addressed in regional and municipal transport policies in Uppsala, Sweden. Three rationales are identified which produce particular subjects: a hypermobile subject framed within a discourse of economic growth, a sustainable subject within a caring rationale, and a safe subject within a risk rationale. The discursive absence of children as a social group is discussed, in relation to a parallel sub-discourse of children as particularly protection-worthy. Children are cast as either political non-subjects or apolitical subjects, complicating the formulation of political demands. In conclusion, the chapter discusses the effects age-blind policy-making in transportation politics has on transport planning and urban space.

References

  1. Adams, J. (1999). The social implications of hypermobility. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J. (2005). Hypermobility: A challenge to governance. In C. Lyall & J. Tait (Eds.), New modes of governance: Developing an integrated policy approach to science, technology, risk and the environment (pp. 123–138). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Alanen, L. (2011). Critical childhood studies? Childhood, 18(2), 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amcoff, J. (2007). Regionförstoring – idé, mätproblem och framtidsutsikter [Regional expansion – Idea, problems of measuring and future prospects]. Institutet för framtidsstudier 2007: 7, Retrieved August 7, 2017, from http://www.iffs.se/media/1195/20070620162424filGiCdC2OiL18o0lm9j11M.pdf
  5. Andersson, R., et al. (Eds.). (2016). Mångfaldens dilemma. Boendesegregation och områdespolitik [The dilemma of diversity: Housing segregation and neighbourhood politics]. Malmö: Gleerups.Google Scholar
  6. Ansell, N. (2008). Childhood and the politics of scale: Descaling children’s geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), 190–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson.Google Scholar
  8. Barker, J., Kraftl, P., Horton, J., & Tucker, F. (2009). The road less travelled: New directions in children’s and young people’s mobility. Mobilities, 48(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biesta, G. (2011). Learning democracy in school and society: Education, lifelong learning and the politics of citizenship. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Björklid, P., & Gummesson, M. (2013). Children’s independent mobility in Sweden. Stockholm: The Swedish Transport Administration.Google Scholar
  11. Böhm, S., Jones, C., Land, C., & Paterson, M. (Eds.). (2006). Against automobility. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Boterman, W. R., Karsten, L., & Musterd, S. (2010). Gentrifiers settling down? Patterns and trends of residential location of middle-class families in Amsterdam. Housing Studies, 25(5), 693–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boverket [National Board of Housing, Building and Planning]. (2017). Skolans nya plats i staden. Kommuners anpassning till skolvalet och urbana stadsbyggnadsprinciper [The new place of the school in the city: How municipalities adjust to the school choice and to principles for urban city building]. Report 2017:16.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll, P., Witten, K., & Kaerns, R. (2011). Housing intensification in Auckland, New Zealand: Implications for children and families. Housing Studies, 26(3), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cedering, M. (2016). Konsekvenser av skolnedläggningar. En studie av barns och barnfamiljers vardagsliv i samband med skolnedläggningar i Ydre kommun [Consequences of school closures: A study of children’s and families’ everyday life in relation to school closures in Ydre municipality]. PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  16. Cele, S. (2013). Performing the political through public space: Teenage girls’ everyday use of a city park. Space and Polity, 17(1), 74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, P., & James, A. (2000). Introduction: Researching children and childhood cultures of communication. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 1–9). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Corsaro, W. (1992). Interpretive reproduction in children’s peer cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Visscher, S. (2014). Mapping children’s presence in the neighbourhood. In G. Biesta et al. (Eds.), Civic learning, democratic citizenship and the public sphere (pp. 73–89). Dordrecht: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emanuel, M. (2012). Trafikslag på undantag. Cykeltrafiken i Stockholm 1930–1980 [Transport mode excepted: Bicycle traffic in Stockholm 1930–1980]. PhD dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  21. Fainstein, S. S., & Servon, L. J. (2005). Gender and planning: A reader. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forsberg, L. (2009). Involved parenthood: Everyday lives of Swedish middle-class families. PhD dissertation, Linköping University.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality. Volume 1: An introduction. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Freudendal-Pedersen, M. (2009). Mobility in daily life: Between freedom and unfreedom. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Fyhri, A., et al. (2011). Children’s active travel and independent mobility in four countries: Development, social contributing trends and measures. Transport Policy, 18, 703–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gil Solá, A. (2013). På väg mot jämställda arbetsresor. Vardagens mobilitet i förändring och förhandling [Towards gender equality? Women’s and men’s commuting under transformation and negotiation]. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  28. Gustafson, K. (2011). No-go area, no-go school: Community discourses, local school market and children’s identity work. Children’s Geographies, 9(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haraway, D. (1990). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  30. Hillman, M. (1993). One false move… An overview of the findings and issues they raise. In M. Hillman (Ed.), Children, transport and the quality of life (pp. 7–18). London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Hillman, M., Adams, J., & Whitelegg, J. (1990). One false move... A study of children’s independent mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Holloway, S. L., & Valentine, G. (2000). Children’s geographies: Playing, living, learning. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Horton, J., et al. (2014). ‘Walking… Just walking’: How children and young people’s everyday pedestrian practices matter. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(1), 94–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Illeris, S. (1996). The service economy: A geographical approach. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. James, A., & James, A. L. (2004). Constructing childhood: Theory, policy and social practice. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  37. Joelsson, T. (2013). Space and sensibility: Young men’s risk-taking practices with motor vehicles. Dissertation No. 574, Linköping University, Linköping.Google Scholar
  38. Joelsson, T. (forthcoming a). “I get a whiz in my body as I walk past it”: Children’s views of their everyday spatial mobilities. Conditionally accepted to Mobilities.Google Scholar
  39. Joelsson, T. (forthcoming b). “So we don’t spoil them”: Understanding children’s everyday mobility through parents’ affective practices. Conditionally accepted to Children’s Geographies.Google Scholar
  40. Jönsson, S., & Lindkvist Scholten, C. (2010). Påbjuden valfrihet? om långpendlares och arbetsgivares förhållningssätt till regionförstoringens effekter [Mandatory freedom of choice? Long-distance commuters’ and employers’ approach to the effects of regional expansion]. Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för samhällsvetenskaper.Google Scholar
  41. Kjørholt, A. T. (2008). Children as new citizens: In the best interest of the child? In A. James & A. L. James (Eds.), European childhoods: Cultures, politics and childhoods in Europe (pp. 14–37). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koglin, T. (2017). Urban mobilities and materialities: A critical reflection of “sustainable” urban development. Applied Mobilities, 2(1), 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kohan, W. O., Olsson, L. M., & Aitken, S. (2015). “Throwntogetherness”: A travelling conversation on the politics of childhood, education and what a teacher does. Revista Electrȏnica de Educação, 9(3), 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kyttä, M., et al. (2015). The last free-range children? Children’s mobility in Finland in the 1990s and 2010s. Journal of Transport Geography, 47, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Laureau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Law, R. (1999). Beyond “women and transport”: Towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography, 23(4), 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lawy, R., & Biesta, G. (2006). Citizenship-as-practice: The educational implication of an inclusive and relational understanding of citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Levy, C. (2013). Travel choice reframed: “Deep distribution” and gender in urban transport. Environment & Urbanization, 25(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lundgren, E. (2004). Våldets normaliseringsprocess. Tre parter, tre strategier [The normalization process of violence: Three parties, three strategies]. Stockholm: ROKS.Google Scholar
  52. McDonald, N. (2008). Critical factors for active transportation to school among low-income and minority students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(4), 341–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mikkelsen, M. R., & Christensen, P. (2009). Is children’s mobility really independent? A study of children’s mobility combining ethnography and GPS/mobile phone technologies. Mobilities, 4(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. New York: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  55. Mukhtar-Landgren, D. (2008). City-marketing in a dual city: Discourses of progress and problems in post-industrial Malmö. In B. Petersson & K. Tyler (Eds.), Majority cultures and the politics of ethnic difference (pp. 55–74). Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Näsman, E. (1994). Individualization and institutionalization of childhood in today’s Europe. In J. Qvortrup, M. Brady, G. Sgritta, & H. Wintersberger (Eds.), Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and politics (pp. 165–188). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  57. Qvortrup, J. (2000). Macroanalysis of childhood. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 66–86). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Rädda Barnen [Save the Children]. (2013). Barnfattigdom i Sverige [Child poverty in Sweden].Google Scholar
  59. Root, A. (Ed.). (2003). Delivering sustainable transport: A social science perspective. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  60. Rosenbloom, S. (2005). Women’s travel issues. In Gender and planning: A reader New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press (pp. 235–255).Google Scholar
  61. Sandberg, M. (2012). De är inte ute så mycket Den bostadsnära naturkontaktens betydelse och utrymme i storstadsbarns vardagsliv [They are not outdoors that much. Nature close to home – Its meaning and place in the everyday lives of urban children]. Phd diss, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  62. SFS 2003:460 Lag om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor [Law on ethical review concerning research on humans].Google Scholar
  63. Skelton, T. (2009). Children’s geographies/geographies of children: Play, work, mobilities and migration. Geography Compass, 3(4), 1430–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. SOU. (2004:34). Regional utveckling – utsikter till 2020 [Regional development – Prospects until 2020].Google Scholar
  65. SOU. (2008/09:93). Mål för framtidens resor och transporter [Objectives for future travel and transport].Google Scholar
  66. Stenbacka, S. (2011). Othering the rural: About the construction of rural masculinities and the unspoken urban hegemonic ideal in Swedish media. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(3), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tillberg, K. (2001). Barnfamiljers dagliga fritidsresor i bilsamhället – ett tidspussel med geografiska och könsmässiga variationer [Families’ daily leisure trips in the car society – A temporal jigsaw with geographical and gendered variations]. Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
  68. Tillberg, K. (2002). Children’s (in)dependent mobility and parents’ chauffeuring in the town and the countryside. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93(4), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Trafikanalys. (2015). Uppföljningen av de transportpolitiska målen [Follow-up on the objectives for transport politics]. Rapport 2015:7.Google Scholar
  70. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administration]. (2012). Barns skolvägar [Children’s routes to school]. Report 2013:006.Google Scholar
  71. Trivector. (2007). Barns och ungdomars resvanor – en resvaneundersökning bland 6–15-åringar i olika stora orter [Children’s and young people’s travel habits – A travel habit study among 6–15 year olds in different sized cities]. Rapport 2007:3.Google Scholar
  72. UN. (1989). The UN convention on the rights of the child. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf. Accessed 27 Sept 2017.
  73. UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication. Accessed 27 Sept 2017.
  74. Uppsala Municipality Statistics. (2016). https://www.uppsala.se/contentassets/f09f9e6b994f41408c66064a2da8470b/omradesfakta-2016.pdf. Accessed 27 Sept 2017.
  75. Uppsalatidningen. (2016, December 15). Framsteg ska sättas främst [Progress should be put first].Google Scholar
  76. Urry, J. (2004a). The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory, Culture and Society, 21(4/5), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Urry, J. (2004b). Connections. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Valentine, G. (2004). Public space and the culture of childhood. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  79. Westerstrand, J. (2008). Mellan mäns händer. Kvinnors rättsubjektivitet, internationell rätt och diskurser om prostitution och trafficking [Between the hands of men: Women’s legal subjectivity, international law and discourses on prostitution and trafficking]. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  80. Whitelegg, J. (1993). Transport for a sustainable future: The case for Europe. London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
  81. Zeiher, H. (2003). Shaping daily life in urban environments. In P. Christensen & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Children in the city: Home, neighbourhood, community (pp. 66–81). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Zeiher, H. J., & Zeiher, H. (1994). Orte und Zeiten der Kinder. Soziales Leben im Alltag von Groβstadtkindern [Places and times for children: Everyday social life of city kids]. Weinheim und München: Juventa Verlag.Google Scholar
  83. Zinnecker, J. (1990). Vom Straβenkind zum verhäuslichten Kind. Kindheitsgeschichte im Prozeβ der Zivilisation [From streetchild to the domesticated child: History of childhood in the process of civilization]. In I. Behknken (Ed.), Stadtgesellschaft und Kindheit im Prozeβ der Zivilisation. Konfigurationen städisher Lebensweise zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (pp. 142–162). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Google Scholar

Policy Material

  1. The county plan for regional transport infrastructure 2014–2025 (Regional Federation of Uppsala County, 2014, part 1 and 2).Google Scholar
  2. The regional bicycle plan for Uppsala county (Regional Federation of Uppsala County, 2010).Google Scholar
  3. The action plan for the work with bicycle traffic (Uppsala Municipality, 2014a).Google Scholar
  4. The action plan for public transport in Uppsala city 2015–2030 (Uppsala Municipality, 2014b).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations