1. 1 Individual and contextual factors contributing in geographical variations in risk-behaviour among young adults in Norway. Sveinung Eiksund Research 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. 2 Outline Background and objectives Traffic accident risk Traffic accident patterns in Norway Research methods Results Conclusions

3. 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. 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. 5 Norway

6. 6 Map 1: Average rate for the period 1998 – 2004.

7. 7 Urban population

8. 8 Map 2: Average rate for the period 1998 – 2004.

9. 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. 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. 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. 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 AREANMean (Std) Urban1472.5 (0.82) Peri-urban2752.6 (0.78) Rural552.9 (0.91)

13. 13 Self-reported speeding violations

14. 14 Self-reported speeding violations

15. 15 Self-reported speeding violations

16. 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 AREANMean (Std) Urban1551.2 (0.54) Peri-urban2901.5 (0.91) Rural602.0 (1.16)

17. 17 Self-reported non-use of seat belts

18. 18 Self-reported non-use of seat belts

19. 19 Self-reported non-use of seat belts

20. 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.