3.1 Study Methodology
The questionnaire used was composed of two main blocks of questions: The first block concerns the interviewees’ profile, containing 34 (mostly closed) questions, which collected socio-demographic data, information on the different ways’ ICTs are employed, how free time is spent, and public spaces are used, in addition to other aspects of interviewees’ social life. The second set of questions, all open, gathered opinions on public spaces (quality, frequency of use, etc.) and how the ICTs could increase their use by the respondent and their friends and peers. The last question of this block asked for additional comments regarding all aspects of the issues raised. The initial idea of this question was to initiate further discussion in the form of informal conversation within the topics of study.
In order to implement the process of inquiry, each one of the authors identified (and then interviewed) two adolescents who were, somehow, part of the interviewer’s wider social network in the cities they live. This choice enabled to speed up the process of inquiry and fostered the establishment of more relaxed conversations-interviews, that made the collection of information not only easier but also oriented it towards more in-depth and qualitative kind of data. The process of inquiry took place between May and June 2017.
3.3 Study Results
Regarding how the eight interviewees use ICTs and related devices, as expected, all adolescents have some kind of digital devices at home and, in particular, some of them are for their personal use. The following information presents synoptically our findings:
-
Smartphones: all household members of respondents from Hannover and Tel Aviv and one from Lisbon have own personal smartphones. In the other families some members do not own a smartphone, presumably the too young ones, these are one family member in Lisbon and two family members in Volos.
-
Desktop computer: with the exception of two cases, one in Lisbon and in Hannover, all families had at least one desktop computer. Notably, a respondent from Tel Aviv reported of having two desktops at home.
-
Tablets: four of the cases reported of not having a tablet at home (Hannover, Lisbon, Tel Aviv and Volos). One case (Hannover) reported having four tablets in the household, one for each member of the family. Interesting is also the case of a Lisbon family mentioning that there is a tablet in the household, but it is not working. The last case, a Volos family of four people counts on two tablets.
-
Laptop/Notebook: all households report that there is at least one laptop/notebook available. In two families (one from Hanover and one from Lisbon), all members have for their own such a device. The second family from Lisbon reported four notebooks for five people.
-
Other technological equipment: with the exception of one case from Lisbon and the two cases of Tel Aviv, all other families stated that there is at least one such device in the household, namely: N2DS and Kindle (in one case from Hannover), iPod, SmartWatch and mp3 (one case from Lisbon), and mp3 player (one case from Volos).
Teenagers were also asked about the use of GPS through the ICT devices they own. Three of the interviewees (one from Tel Aviv, Volos and Hannover) replied that they did not make such use. All others reported that they use this function mainly for locating and consulting transport services. All teens have reported they have internet access at their homes and at school (both Wi-Fi and cable connection), and they use it for research purposes and for obtaining all kind of information.
Adolescents were asked to identify from a list of seven places (home, school, other family members’ home, friends’ home, shopping centres, public spaces, and public transport) where they access the internet most. Unfortunately, only in Lisbon the question was answered as expected; in all other cases this question was unsatisfactory answered, preventing us from drawing comprehensive conclusions on the issue. For example, the respondents from Hannover marked the places where the internet are accessed (with no identification of relative importance between the places), whereas the respondents from Tel Aviv and Volos indicated the importance of some, but not all of the places (presumably only those used). In any case, the answers indicate the following:
-
Home: Except for one case (Tel Aviv), all other interviewees have selected this option. Moreover, the two cases of both Lisbon and Volos, reported “home” to be the most frequent place for accessing the internet.
-
School: The two interviewees from Hannover marked this as a place of frequent internet access, whereas all responders from Lisbon identified “school” as the second place of importance. The other cases, i.e. in Tel Aviv and Volos, teenagers reported that they use the internet for research, without however providing further information on where they access to it.
-
Other family members’ home: Only the cases of Lisbon and Volos have place identified as important; in Lisbon it came as second, while in Volos it was classified fourth and fifth most frequent way to access to internet. One of Hannover’s respondents selected this option (but without ranking its importance); and for the cases of Tel Aviv no answers were delivered.
-
Friends’ home: This place was selected by two interviewees, one from Hannover and from Tel Aviv. This option was select as first and second place in Volos, and the fourth and the fifth in Lisbon.
-
Shopping centre: This place was marked by one case in Hannover and by another in Tel Aviv. In Lisbon, it was marked as the third and last rank.
-
Public spaces: It was ranked second and third in Volos, fifth and fourth in Lisbon. It was marked as important by one of the Hannover teenagers.
-
Public transport: This place was ranked as last and third in importance by teenagers of Lisbon and fourth of Volos. One interviewee from Hannover ranked it too.
The frequency of internet connection was explored in the next question, revealing that teenagers have access to Wi-Fi internet services to a great extent. Both respondents from Volos, one from Lisbon and one from Tel Aviv reported that they are always connected, whereas the other two respondents from Lisbon and Tel Aviv and the one from Hannover, indicated that they stay connected several times during a day. Notably, only one interviewee (from Hannover) replied to have internet access only a few times a day. Turning to the question of how many hours the internet is used every day by the teenagers, the majority of interviewees mentioned to use it between four to seven hours, and only two of the respondents (from Tel Aviv and Volos) use it about one to two hours per day. Moreover, these answers allow us to spot the following findings:
-
Girls specify that they spend more time using the internet than boys (to note, however, that only two boys participated in the study);
-
Internet time used for email communication seems to be quite lower relative to time spent in other activities, especially those related to social network/media;
-
Regarding the time teenagers spend connected to the internet for recreational activities has been mentioned most often.
The next set of questions explored how teenagers spent their free time. First, on a given list of activities (watch TV, go for a walk, stay at home with friends, play computer games, listen to music, study, read books, access social networks, other) the teenagers are asked to rate on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high) what they usually do in their free time during the week. The results show that the majority of the adolescents spend most of their free time in playing computer games and in studying (both answers scored equally high), and in listening to music (scored third). Apart from these, other preferred activities that are high scored are: watching TV (indicated by one respondent from Hannover and one from Tel Aviv), book reading (mentioned by the other respondent from Hannover), accessing social network (selected by one teenager from Tel Aviv and one from Volos) and walking (indicated by the same respondent from Volos).
The second question explored which places from a given list (shopping centre, cinema, theatre, museum, concert/festival, club/association, urban park, square, garden, or other) teenagers visit most during their free time. It becomes evident that semi-public places and, in particular malls, cinemas, museums and theatres, score top in the preferences of respondents. Interestingly, public open spaces, such as squares and parks, score lower, but above other places of social gathering such as festivals, clubs or associations. These findings corroborate the arguments raised in the literature that adolescents tend to withdraw from public spaces and to resort to semi-public spaces as the new rhetorical and experiential landscape. Regarding the individual responses, teens from Hannover are more into spending time in festivals and clubs, Lisbon’s teenagers are more into theatres and museums, Tel Aviv respondents spend time in parks and shopping centres and in Volos in cinemas and squares.
Teenagers were also questioned about their practices and behaviour in public spaces. They have been asked on the frequency they go to a public space, how much time they usually spend there, what they do there, and with who they go. As regards the first question, the answers show that four out of eight teenagers visit public spaces every day (the two teens from Lisbon, one from Hannover and one from Tel Aviv); others mentioned to go only on weekends (both from Volos) or sporadically (one respondent from Hannover and one from Tel Aviv). With regard to the time spent in public spaces, three respondents (the two from Tel Aviv and the one from Hannover) replied that they go to the public spaces for an hour or less per day, others that they stay between two to four hours a day (two from Lisbon, one from Hannover and one from Volos). One adolescent (from Volos) replied that during the summer she stays in parks and squares about six hours per day. The interviewed teens expressed to go to the public spaces mainly to meet with friends (seven out of eight), to walk (six respondents), to relax and rest (five respondents), to picnic (three respondents), to read and study (three respondents), to practise sports and exercise (two respondents) and to attend events and play games (two people in each category, respectively). All teenagers mentioned to go to public spaces with their friends and some with family members (the two from Lisbon, one from Hannover and one from Tel Aviv).
Finally, a number of questions explored what teenagers think of public spaces and the role ICTs can play in increasing their use. The first question is about the teens’ judgment upon the public space suitability for the needs of adolescents. Respondents were generally positive; the two teens from Tel Aviv answered with “definitely yes”, highlighting the fact that the parks they use have sections that enable privacy and isolation. This approval was also shared by the teenagers from Hannover and Lisbon, as they answered with “rather yes”. On the other hand, adolescents from Volos were not satisfied with the public spaces, reporting a number of problems and deficiencies they see in these places. This builds the bridge to the next question: what teenagers do think is missing in these places and what should be done to increase the usability for young people. The teens from Tel Aviv reported no problems, as they are satisfied with the public spaces they have. Furthermore, three teenagers highlighted problems of dog fouling (one each from Hannover, Lisbon and Volos), others pointed out issues of maintenance and cleanliness (one each from Lisbon and Hannover, and the two from Volos), two have highlighted the need of more natural elements and pleasant environment (one each from Lisbon and Hannover), the girl from Hannover brought out the need of coffee shops nearby green spaces, one of the Lisbon girls stressed the absence of drinking water in parks, and the one from Volos asked for more events and cultural activities in public spaces. Remarkably, three of the interviewees (two from Volos and one from Hannover) highlighted the lack for privacy for teenagers and emphasised the need for special places within parks, where adolescents (as well as other people with special interests and needs, as children) can claim for themselves, places where they can loiter, hang out and interact with their friends and peers. The third question of this block asked if ICTs can improve public space usage, and if so, what kind of ICTs would be most supportive. Six adolescents, out of eight, replied to this question (the two who did not are from Hannover), all in a positive manner. Three teens highlighted the need of providing online information (the girl from Lisbon and two from Tel Aviv) related to public-space facilities and functions (such as, the available public-space qualities and the activities that can be performed in them, and the availability and frequency of public transport). The two teens from Volos stated that high quality Wi-Fi would be very helpful, it would improve communication and coordination between teenagers, and eventually attracting more young people, making “these spaces more fashionable”. They also suggested the development of special apps attached to public spaces (like Pokémon-go).