Evaluation and Program Planning 55 (2016) 9–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation and Program Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan

Effect of railway safety education on the safety knowledge and

behaviour intention of schoolchildren
Anne Silla *, Veli-Pekka Kallberg 1
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, PO Box 1000, Vuorimiehentie 3, Espoo 02044 VTT, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This study was designed to evaluate whether railway safety lessons are effective in increasing
Received 28 May 2015 schoolchildren’s safety knowledge and behaviour intention. The railway safety education in schools
Received in revised form 13 October 2015 included a 45-min lesson on safe behaviour in a railway environment directed at 8–11 year old
Accepted 25 November 2015
schoolchildren. The lessons were held in four schools located near railway lines in Finland. The
Available online 27 November 2015
effectiveness of this measure was evaluated based on a short survey directed at pupils before the lesson
(base level) and around 2–3 months later (post-lesson) based on three variables which are considered as
Keywords:
strong determinants of actual behaviour: behaviour intention, estimated dangerousness of the
School education
Railway trespassing
behaviour, and level of knowledge on the legality of the behaviour. The results show that the change in
Surveys the share of correct answers was positive regarding all questions except for one question in which the
Behaviour intention difference was not significant. Based on this we can reasonably assume that railway safety education in
Danger estimation schools can have a positive effect for all the measured variables, although the effect is not necessarily
Illegal behaviour large. The results indicate that these positive changes can have a positive effect on the frequency of
trespassing (i.e. fewer unsafe crossings in the future). We can further assume that reduction in the
frequency of trespassing would reduce the frequency of trespassing accidents.
ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction trespassing. The education campaign was selected as a measure to

Railway suicides and trespassing accidents resulted in more
than 3,600 fatalities in 2011 on the European railway network,
representing 88% of all fatalities occurring within the railway
system (European Railway Agency, 2014). In order to tackle this
problem a European RESTRAIL project was tasked with reducing
the occurrence of suicides and trespassing (illegal presence in the
railway area) on railway property and the costly service disruption
these events cause (RESTRAIL, 2014a). As part of the project
11 pilot tests were carried out in different European countries
aiming to provide better insight into the effectiveness of the
measures targeted (i) in preventing suicides and suicide attempts,
(ii) preventing trespassing accidents, and (iii) mitigating the
consequences by speeding up the system recovery from such
incidents.
This paper presents the Finnish pilot test on education in
schools for 8–11 year old children. The pilot aimed to prevent
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 407219014; fax: +358 207227000.
E-mail addresses: anne.silla@vtt.fi (A. Silla), veepeek@saunalahti.fi
(V.-P. Kallberg).
1
Tel.: +358 405317631; fax: +358 207227000.
be tested in Finland, since based on an earlier Finnish study a
substantial number of interviewed trespassers and people living
close to a railway line considered trespassing to be safe (Silla &
Luoma, 2009, 2012). Furthermore, according to the same studies,
many trespassers and people living close to a railway line assumed
trespassing to be legal. People living close to a railway line also
considered that education in schools concerning the dangers of
walking on or across the railway tracks is an important measure to
prevent railway trespassing (Silla & Luoma, 2012). Similarly to
several other European countries, the fatalities related to railway
trespassing represent a significant share of all fatalities occurring
on Finnish railways. During 2006–2011 approximately eight
persons were killed yearly due to railway trespassing (Finnish
Transport Agency, 2010–2012; Finnish Rail Administration, 2007–
2009).
The schoolchildren were selected as a target group for this pilot
test, since their ability to estimate the risks related to trespassing is
limited. Therefore, it is important to increase schoolchildren’s
awareness of the rules related to railway crossing and to increase
their understanding of the risks related to railway trespassing.
Examples of topics addressed included e.g. that compared to road
vehicles, trains are heavy, can not stop quickly, and frequently
move fast. Long braking distances and high speeds mean that even

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.11.006
0149-7189/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
10 A. Silla, V.-P. Kallberg / Evaluation and Program Planning 55 (2016) 9–16
if an engine driver sees a pedestrian on the track, the distance is
seldom long enough to stop the train in time. Even though the
killed trespassers are typically adults (Silla & Luoma, 2012) the
schoolchildren and young people are also trespassing (Silla &
Luoma, 2012; Silla & Luoma, 2011) and some of them are
committing vandalism in the railway areas.
In the railway environment, pedestrians are always legally
responsible for the safe crossing of the tracks. They are obliged to
use railway-crossing sites (i.e. level crossings), which are specially
marked for that purpose. Therefore, trespassing accidents are
always interpreted to result from violations, risky behaviour or
errors on the part of the pedestrian. However, although trespassing
is illegal, clear and regularly used footpaths across railway lines are
found in many places. The results of a survey directed to engine
drivers in Finland reported 100 specific locations for railway
trespassing in Finnish railway network (Silla & Luoma, 2009).
Another Finnish study investigated a 4 km stretch of track and
12 locations with frequent trespassing were identified (Silla &
Luoma, 2011). Based on these findings it is safe to assume that
railway trespassing is frequent in Finland.
There is a high variation in the motives for the trespassing
behaviour. A number of studies have proposed that the main
reason for trespassing is taking a short cut from A to B because the
authorised route is assessed to be too far away (e.g. Lobb, Harré, &
Suddendorf, 2001; Rail Safety and Standards Boards, 2005; Silla &
Luoma, 2009). Other reasons for trespassing are, for example,
related to recreational purposes (taking a walk along the tracks),
hanging around (playing, drinking alcohol, smoking, applying
graffiti) or even to committing vandalism. Due to these numerous
motives it is clear that the prevention of schoolchildren’s
trespassing is more complex issue than to inform them about
the dangerousness and illegality of this behaviour. However, the
assumption is that after the lesson the schoolchildren will have a
better understanding on safe behaviour in railway environment
and the consequences of trespassing and therefore they have
better capabilities to behave correctly and to resist the temptations
resulted e.g. from peer or time pressure.
The main aim of this study was to evaluate whether the railway
safety lessons were effective in increasing schoolchildren’s safety
knowledge and behaviour intention. The presumption is that
schoolchildren who participate in the lesson become more aware
of the dangers related to railway trespassing and railway lines in
general, and are more likely in future to avoid playing, loitering and
engaging in vandalism in the railway area and/or taking a shortcut
across the tracks.
2. Previous studies
Regardless of the large number of proposed countermeasures to
prevent railway trespassing, there is little published research
evaluating the effectiveness of any of these interventions (Lobb,
2006). Several railway safety education programmes exist
worldwide to provide material to teachers and volunteers to
spread information about the dangers related to railway trespas-
sing and loitering in railway areas, and also to provide information
on safe behaviour in railway environment directly to children.
Relevant websites have been developed in the US (Operation
Lifesaver, 2014), UK (Network Rail, 2014), New Zealand (TrackSAFE
NZ, 2014) and Australia (TrackSAFE, 2014). According to the
website of Operation Lifesaver (Operation Lifesaver, 2014) and
those of national railway organisations (e.g. Prorail in the
Netherlands, Network Rail in the UK, Kiwirail in New Zealand),
several campaigns have been conducted to increase public
knowledge, especially among young people, on the dangers and
regulations related to railway trespassing and loitering in railway
areas. However, there are few if any studies investigating the
effectiveness of education campaigns in preventing railway
trespassing. Savage (2006) investigated the effect of Operation
Lifesaver activities on the number of collisions and fatalities at
level crossings. He found that increasing the amount of educational
activity will reduce the number of collisions, but the effect on the
number of deaths cannot be concluded with statistical certainty.
The analysis included only level crossing accidents and thus the
effect of education on trespassing fatalities remained unknown.
Two studies from New Zealand (Lobb et al., 2001; Lobb, Harré, &
Terry, 2003) have evaluated the effect of education programmes on
preventing railway trespassing. The first study (Lobb et al., 2001)
evaluated the effect of public education combined with access
prevention by fences to reduce trespass at a suburban station in
Auckland targeting people of all ages. The results showed that
3 months after the interventions the share of people trespassing
(instead of using a nearby over bridge) was 36%, compared to 59%
prior to the intervention. Moreover, the reduction was higher for
adults than for children. In another study among secondary and
high school students Lobb et al. (2003) concluded that punishment
may be more effective than education in reducing unsafe
behaviour (i.e. unsafe crossings) in the vicinity of railway stations,
and substantially more effective than communication in raising
awareness. In both of the studies the education programmes where
combined with other measures and thus the effect of the pure
educational campaign is not clear.
Safety education programmes are also widely used to improve
road safety. A literature review conducted by Dragutinovic and
Twisk (2006) on the effectiveness of road safety education shows
that the number of road safety education programmes that are
followed by thorough evaluations is also rather limited. Moreover,
they found that most evaluation studies use intermediate variables
such as knowledge, attitudes and (self-reported) safe behaviour as
evaluation criteria instead of crashes. One may argue that the
reduction in the number of accidents or near accidents would be the
best variable to describe the effects of an education campaign.
However, it is rarely possible to conduct evaluation studies on
education programmes based on accident data, because (i) crashes
and injuries remain rare events in the population of road users, and
(ii) in order to have sufficient statistical power to demonstrate an
effect on crash-related outcomes, an education programme would
require a large number of participants and monitoring of crash and
injury records of the participants over a long period of time, which is
not practical (Twisk, Vlakveld, Commandeur, Shope, & Kok, 2014).
3. Method
3.1. Railway safety programme
Education in schools included a 45-min lesson on safe
behaviour in a railway environment directed at 8–11 year old
schoolchildren. The length of the lesson was 45 min since this is
the conventional length of one lesson in Finnish schools. The main
message of the lesson was that railway lines are only meant for
trains. After the lesson the children should have understood (i) the
main characteristics of railway traffic (railway lines are only meant
for railway vehicles, trains cannot yield, trains cannot stop fast,
trains always have priority etc.), (ii) that trespassing, playing and
loitering in the railway areas are forbidden, and (iii) that they have
the responsibility to behave safely in a railway environment. The
objective of this measure was to increase the knowledge of
schoolchildren on safe behaviour in a railway environment and
thus to reduce vandalism, risky situations and possible accidents
resulting from railway trespassing (playing, loitering, taking a
short cut across the tracks etc.).
The material used during the lessons was based on the lesson
plans provided by the Finnish Transport Safety Agency on their
 [(Fig._1)TD$IG]
A. Silla, V.-P. Kallberg / Evaluation and Program Planning 55 (2016) 9–16 11

website. The specific website for railway safety education includes

several lesson plans for primary and secondary schoolteachers to
use during the school year (Finnish Transport Safety Agency, 2014).
It is not known how frequently the material is actually used. The
website material is closely related to the material prepared by
Operation Lifesaver.

3.2. Design

The effect of the school education campaign was evaluated

based on a short survey directed at pupils before the lesson (base
level) and around 2–3 months later (post-lesson). The survey
measured three variables: (i) level of knowledge related to railway
trespassing, (ii) behaviour intention, and (iii) pupils’ assessment of
safety related to crossing railway lines. The questions were linked
to three locations (Fig. 1): unofficial path across the tracks
(Location A), unofficial path across the tracks with a hole in the
fence (Location B), and level crossing (Location C).
The children were allowed to respond anonymously and the
answers (base line and post-lesson) were matched at class level.
The same students were assumed to have participated in both
surveys unless they were sick. Only the answers of classes that had
participated in both surveys were included in the analysis. No
information about the gender was collected since the authors
wanted to keep the data collection process as simple as possible to
increase the participation of schools to the study.
The study was conducted as a before-after study with no control
data. The inclusion of a control group was discussed but eventually
dismissed, primarily because the short survey included only a few
questions and would probably raise discussions among the pupils
and their parents, thus informing the control group and creating
bias in their answers to the survey.

3.3. Procedure and participants

The lessons were held in four schools located near railway lines
in the city of Tampere in Finland in September–November
2013. The schools were selected by experts at the Finnish
Transport Agency on the basis of proximity to railway lines but
also because the Tampere area has been identified as a problem
location for railway vandalism. The study sample was formed by
four schools (A, B, C and D) who agreed to participate in the study.
The lessons were held by the teachers of each class according to the
instructions written by the researchers. No training was provided
to the teachers to standardise the practices.
In total, 321 schoolchildren in 20 classes participated in the
lesson and filled in the base level survey. For unknown reasons the
post-lesson survey was not completed by all schoolchildren who Fig. 1. Figures of locations in which the questions were linked. (A) Unofficial path
took part in the lesson. After removal of classes that did not fill in the across the track. (B) Unofficial path across the tracks with a hole in the fence. (C)
post-lesson survey, the matched dataset included answers from Level crossing.

248 pupils in 15 classes both in base level and post-lesson surveys.

4. Results phase (72.2–94.8%), and rose by no more than 2.5 percentage units
in the after phase (Table 1).
4.1. Answers regarding behaviour intention There were no statistically significantly differences between
grades 2–4 or schools A–D.
The specific questions were
Question 1: Would you cross the railway lines at location A 4.2. Answers regarding safety
(yes/no)?
Question 2: Would you cross the railway lines at location B (yes/ The specific questions were
no)? Question 4: How safe do you think crossing is at location A
Question 3: Would you cross the railway lines at location C (yes/ (completely safe/fairly safe/slightly dangerous/very dangerous)?
no)? Question 5: How safe do you think crossing is at location B
When looking at all grades together the share of ‘‘correct’’ (completely safe/fairly safe/slightly dangerous/very dangerous)?
answers (indicating crossing intention only at places where it is Question 6: How safe do you think crossing is at location C
allowed) for questions 1–3 was fairly high already in the before (completely safe/fairly safe/slightly dangerous/very dangerous)?
12 A. Silla, V.-P. Kallberg / Evaluation and Program Planning 55 (2016) 9–16

Table 1
Number and share of answers (before and after) by question and grade. The ‘‘correct’’ answers are highlighted in grey.

2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Total

Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total

Question 1 Before No. of answers 20 67 87 23 47 70 26 65 91 69 179 248

% Share 23.0 77.0 100.0 32.9 67.1 100.0 28.6 71.4 100.0 27.8 72.2 100.0
After No. of answers 15 74 89 29 42 71 21 66 87 65 182 247
% Share 16.9 83.1 100.0 40.8 59.2 100.0 24.1 75.9 100.0 26.3 73.7 100.0

Question 2 Before No. of answers 5 82 87 4 68 70 4 87 91 13 235 248

% Share 5.7 94.3 100.0 5.7 94.3 100.0 4.4 95.6 100.0 5.2 94.8 100.0
After No. of answers 1 88 89 4 67 71 2 86 88 7 241 248
% Share 1.1 98.9 100.0 5.6 94.4 100.0 2.3 97.7 100.0 2.8 97.2 100.0

Question 3 Before No. of answers 60 27 87 60 10 70 77 14 91 197 51 248

% Share 69.0 31.0 100.0 85.7 14.3 100.0 84.6 15.4 100.0 79.4 20.6 100.0
After No. of answers 63 26 89 60 11 71 80 8 88 203 45 248
% Share 70.8 29.2 100.0 84.5 15.5 100.0 90.9 9.1 100.0 81.9 18.1 100.0

When looking at all grades together, the proportion of correct
answers for questions 4–6 (slightly dangerous and very dangerous
for question 4 and question 5; completely safe and fairly safe for
question 6) in the base line survey varied between 75.4% and 93.9%
(Table 2). In the after phase this rose by between 2.4 and
6.9 percentage units, the highest change relating to the location
with a level crossing (location C).
For all respondents together, statistically significant differences
in the share of correct answers between base level and post-lesson
surveys were obtained for question 5: Crossing the railway lines at
location B (hole in the fence) was considered dangerous more often
after the lesson than before (x2(1) = 6.62 p < 0.05) and question 6:
Crossing the railway lines at location C (level crossing) was
considered safe more often after the lesson than before
(x2(1) = 3.96 p < 0.05).
For the results by grade, the effect was statistically significant in
one case:
2nd Grade schoolchildren considered crossing the railway lines
at location B (Question 5, hole in the fence) to be more often
dangerous after the lesson than before (x2(1) = 5.93, p < 0.05). It
should be noted, however, that the proportion of correct answers
in the base-level survey was lower (88.4%) for 2nd grade pupils
than for 3rd and 4th grade pupils (97.7% and 97.2%). The proportion
of correct answers in the post-level survey was roughly the same
for all grades (97.7–98.9%).
For the results by school the effect was statistically significant
in one case: In school C, out of schools A–D, crossing the railway
lines at location B (question 5, hole in the fence) was considered
dangerous more often after the lesson than before (x2(1) = 6.15,
p < 0.05). Specifically, the change in proportion of correct answers
improved from 92.9% to 98.7%.
4.3. Answers regarding legality
The specific questions were
Question 7: Is crossing the railway lines allowed at location A
(yes/no)?
Question 8: Is crossing the railway lines allowed at location B
(yes/no)?
Question 9: Is crossing the railway lines allowed at location C
(yes/no)?
When looking at all grades together the share of correct
answers for questions 7–9 in the base line survey varied between
64.2% and 98.4%, the highest share concerning the crossing of
railway lines at the location with a hole in the fence in location B
(Table 3). The rise in the share of correct answers varied between
1.1 and 6.0 percentage units, with the highest change concerning
the location with a level crossing (location C).
For all respondents together, the only statistically significant
differences in the share of correct answers between base level
and post-lesson surveys were those obtained for question 9:
Crossing the railway lines at location C (level crossing) was
considered legal more often after the lesson than before
(x2(1) = 4.25, p < 0.05).

Table 2
Number and share of answers (before and after) by question and grade. The correct answers are highlighted in grey. CS = Completely safe, FS = Fairly safe, SD = Slightly
dangerous, VD = Very dangerous.

2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Total

CS FS SD VD Total CS FS SD VD Total CS FS SD VD Total CS FS SD VD Total

Question 4 Before No. of answers 3 17 34 33 87 3 17 34 16 70 2 19 45 25 91 8 53 113 74 248

% Share 3.4 19.5 39.1 37.9 100.0 4.3 24.3 48.6 22.9 100.0 2.2 20.9 49.5 27.5 100.0 3.2 21.4 45.6 29.8 100.0
After No. of answers 0 13 42 33 88 5 17 26 22 70 0 19 47 20 86 5 49 115 75 244
% Share 0.0 14.8 47.7 37.5 100.0 7.1 24.3 37.1 31.4 100.0 0.0 22.1 54.7 23.3 100.0 2.1 20.1 47.1 30.7 100.0

Question 5 Before No. of answers 1 9 24 52 86 1 2 15 52 70 0 2 28 61 91 2 13 67 165 247

% Share 1.2 10.5 27.9 60.5 100.0 1.4 2.9 21.4 74.3 100.0 0.0 2.2 30.8 67.0 100.0 0.8 5.3 27.1 66.8 100.0
After No. of answers 0 2 21 65 88 0 1 13 57 71 0 1 14 73 88 0 4 48 195 247
% Share 0.0 2.3 23.9 73.9 100.0 0.0 1.4 18.3 80.3 100.0 0.0 1.1 15.9 83.0 100.0 0.0 1.6 19.4 79.0 100.0

Question 6 Before No. of answers 18 38 21 9 86 18 43 3 6 70 24 53 10 4 91 60 134 34 19 247

% Share 20.9 44.2 24.4 10.5 100.0 25.7 61.4 4.3 8.6 100.0 26.4 58.2 11.0 4.4 100.0 24.3 54.2 13.8 7.7 100.0
After No. of answers 20 48 13 7 88 20 42 6 3 71 18 63 6 1 88 58 153 25 11 247
% Share 22.7 54.5 14.8 8.0 100.0 28.2 59.2 8.5 4.2 100.0 20.5 71.6 6.8 1.1 100.0 23.5 61.9 10.1 4.5 100.0
 A. Silla, V.-P. Kallberg / Evaluation and Program Planning 55 (2016) 9–16 13

Table 3
Number and share of answers (before and after) by question and grade. The correct answers are highlighted in grey.

2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Total

Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total

Question 7 Before No. of answers 27 60 87 24 45 69 37 53 90 88 158 246

% share 31.0 69.0 100.0 34.8 65.2 100.0 41.1 58.9 100.0 35.8 64.2 100.0
After No. of answers 17 68 85 27 43 70 37 49 86 81 160 241
% share 20.0 80.0 100.0 38.6 61.4 100.0 43.0 57.0 100.0 33.6 66.4 100.0

Question 8 Before No. of answers 3 82 85 1 68 69 0 91 91 4 241 245

% share 3.4 96.5 100.0 1.4 98.6 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1.6 98.4 100.0
After No. of answers 3 64 67 1 69 70 2 86 88 6 219 225
% share 4.5 95.5 100.0 1.4 98.6 100.0 2.3 97.7 100.0 2.7 97.3 100.0

Question 9 Before No. of answers 68 15 83 59 10 69 82 9 91 209 34 243

% share 81.9 18.1 100.0 85.5 14.5 100.0 90.1 9.9 100.0 86.0 14.0 100.0
After No. of answers 60 7 67 64 6 70 83 5 88 207 18 225
% share 89.6 10.4 100.0 91.4 8.6 100.0 94.3 5.7 100.0 92.0 8.0 100.0

There were no statistically significant differences between
grades.
For the results by school the effect was statistically significant
in one case: In school B, out of schools A–D, crossing the railway
lines at location C (question 9, level crossing) was considered more
often legal after the lesson than before (x2(1) = 4.16, p < 0.05).
Specifically, the change in the proportion of correct answers in
school B improved from 81.6% to 96.9%.
We are unable to provide a clear explanation for the variation
between schools. However, the teachers constructed the content of
their lesson independently based on the lesson plan provided, and
they could have weighed the issues differently. In particular, in
school B they may have spent more time on the legality of crossing
railway lines than in other schools, and in school C they may have
paid more attention to the dangers of different crossing points.
5. Costs and benefits
A simple cost-benefit analysis of this railway safety education
programme was carried out.
In order to quantify the benefits, we derived a rough estimate of
the quantitative effect of school education on fatal trespassing
fatalities in Finland over a period of 10 years. In brief, the method
consists of the following assumptions and steps:
During the 10-year observation period all 10-year-old school-
children are given a 45-min lesson on railway safety.
It is assumed that the number of annual trespassing accidents
each year of the 10-year observation period is reduced by a factor
of z(x) = r  p(x)  N, where x is the year (1,. . .,10), r is the expected
percentage reduction in the annual number of trespassing fatalities
of children who have attended the safety lesson (estimated on the
basis of the effect on their knowledge and behaviour intention),
p(x) is the proportion of the population who have participated in
the education by year x, and N is the average annual number of
trespassing fatalities if no education is given.
The population of Finland is approximately 5400,000 and the
number of 10-year-olds is about 60,000. Therefore the proportion
of the population that attend the rail safety lesson will increase
every year of the 10-year observation period by 1.11% (=60,000/
5400,000)
Then the proportion of the population who have attended rail
safety lessons in year x of the 10-year period would be x  0.0111.
The number of prevented trespassing fatalities in year x of
the 10-year period would then be x  0.0111  r  N, and the
total number of prevented fatalities over the 10-year period would
be (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10)  0.0111  r  N = 55 
0.0111  r  N = 0.6111  r  N.
Based on the statistics of recent years, N is approximately 8. If
we assume, on the basis of Tables 1–3, that a 5% increase in
knowledge and 3% decrease in behaviour intention would result in
a 4% decrease in fatal trespassing accident risk of children who
attend railway safety lessons, it is possible to estimate the
reduction in the number of trespassing fatalities. Then, if all
schoolchildren attend a 45-min railway safety lesson during a 10-
year period, the estimated reduction in trespassing fatalities in that
period would be 0.6111  0.04  8 = 0.195. If we assume further
that the effect would last for the rest of the child’s life, or 50 years
beyond the 10-year period, the total reduction in the number of
trespassing fatalities would be about 6  0.195 = 1.17. The current
value of preventing a fatality in Finland is 1955,064s (European
Railway Agency, 2014), and thus the reduction of 1.17 fatalities
would bring benefits worth s2.29 million.
If we assume that the average number of children in a school
class is 20, then the needed number of classes to provide lessons for
60,000 children every year would be 3000, and the number of
classes needed for the 10-year programme would be 30,000. If we
further assume that the cost of one lesson is s100, the total cost of
the 10-year programme would be about s3 million.
Comparing the monetary savings and costs of this programme,
we see that the benefits far outweigh the costs if the programme
manages to save more than one life. However, it should be noted
that in addition to the benefits related to avoided fatalities, other
benefits exist that are not included in the above calculations and
they should be considered when pondering the possible imple-
mentation of this measure. These other benefits are not only
related to avoided injuries and reduced vandalism, but also to the
number of delays caused by related events and unauthorised
people in the track areas.
The calculation above is by no means intended to be definitive,
but it provides a rough estimate of the quantitative effect of the
measure. Furthermore, the calculation process is simple and
transparent, making it easy to see how changing the assumptions
would affect the end results. A quantitative effect of the measure
on the number of trespassing fatalities is also useful when these
kinds of educational measures are compared to alternative
measures for preventing trespassing fatalities in terms of cost
effectiveness.
6. Discussion and conclusions
The main aim of this study was to evaluate whether railway
safety lessons are effective in increasing schoolchildren’s safety
knowledge and behaviour intention; thus the results provide
valuable input to the discussion on the effectiveness of railway
14 A. Silla, V.-P. Kallberg / Evaluation and Program Planning 55 (2016) 9–16
safety education campaigns. The effectiveness of this measure was
estimated based on three variables: behaviour intention, estimat-
ed dangerousness of the behaviour, and level of knowledge on the
legality of the behaviour. All these variables are considered as
strong determinants of actual behaviour.
Behaviour intention: Behaviour intention is assumed to have a
direct link to actual behaviour. Therefore the reduction in
behaviour intention is assumed to lead to a reduction in the
frequency of railway trespassing.
Estimated dangerousness of the behaviour: The assumption is
that the higher the children evaluate the risk to be, the smaller the
probability of an unsafe crossing of railway lines. This is supported
by the findings of Silla (2012), which show that perceived risk has
proven to be predictive of trespassing behaviour. Specifically,
trespassing was considered dangerous by (i) 98.0% of the
respondents in the survey, who indicated that they had not
trespassed, followed by (ii) 76.8% of the respondents who indicated
that they had trespassed and (iii) 50.0% of the interviewed
trespassers.
Knowledge of legality of the behaviour: The assumption is that the
higher the knowledge of the illegality of the crossing, the smaller
the probability of an unsafe crossing of railway lines. This is
supported by the findings of Silla and Luoma (2012), which
indicate that the effect of awareness of legality on the respondents’
own reported trespassing was significant, with a more substantial
proportion trespassing among respondents who indicated tres-
passing to be legal compared to those who considered it illegal.
The results show that railway safety education in schools has a
positive effect for all the measured variables. Specifically, the
change in the share of correct answers was positive except for
question 8 (Is crossing the railway lines legal at location B?).
However, upon closer examination the number of yes answers was
four at base level and six post-lesson, which is not a significant
difference. Based on this we can reasonably assume that railway
safety education in schools will also have a positive effect on the
frequency of trespassing in that area.
The size of the effect depends on the children’s base level
understanding of the dangers related to railway lines. According to
the results of this study, a fairly large majority of the children had a
reasonably adequate perception of the dangers related to railways,
and their behaviour intention reflected their perception even
before the lesson. It may well be that the base level knowledge of
schoolchildren is better in schools located near railway lines than
in schools located farther away. Nonetheless it is useful to review
the topic every now and then so that the children maintain their
awareness of these dangers.
If looking at the results in more detail we can see two
interesting findings. First, even after the lesson a fairly large
proportion of schoolchildren (29.2% of 2nd graders, 15.5% of 3rd
graders and 9.1% of 4th graders) indicate that that they would not
cross the railway lines at location C (level crossing). In addition,
some schoolchildren (10.4% of 2nd graders, 8.6% of 3rd graders and
5.7% of 4th graders) answered that it is not allowed to cross the
railway lines at location C (level crossing). One explanation for this
might be that the parents have said to their children that they are
not allowed to go near the railway lines in any place. In both cases
the share of ‘‘correct’’ answers is higher the older the school-
children are. Therefore, one might assume that older school-
children adopted the message delivered by the teachers better
than the younger. The second finding proposes that fencing is an
effective way to inform the schoolchildren about the dangerous-
ness and illegality of crossing the railway tracks outside level
crossings, even when having a hole in the fence.
Overall, prevention of trespassing is a challenge. In Finland, for
example, we have nearly 6000 km of railway lines in use and unlike
in some other countries, railways are not usually isolated from the
surrounding areas by fences. Moreover, trespassing behaviour does
not always result in trespassing accidents, and the trespassing
practice is much wider than it emerges from the accident statistics.
Therefore, there is no information on the amount of trespassing
occurring on railways in Finland or in Tampere region where our
pilots were conducted. Due to the lack of data on the frequency of
railway trespassing this study was solely based on surveys.
As far the authors are aware the evaluation related to our pilot
is the first attempt to evaluate the effects of education programme
related to railway trespassing. Lobb et al. (2001, 2003) have
evaluated the education campaigns combined with other
measures but based on their studies the effect of the pure
educational campaign is not clear. Our results show positive
changes in behaviour intention, estimation of danger and
understanding of legality of railway trespassing. Even though
the obtained positive changes are rather small the results indicate
that these changes can have a positive effect on the frequency of
trespassing (i.e. fewer unsafe crossings in the future). Based on
this we can assume that reduction in the frequency of trespassing
could have an effect (i.e. reduction) on the frequency of
trespassing accidents. The results of our study are not surprising
since Lobb et al. (2001) also reported that several studies have
suggested that educational or awareness-inducing interventions
have limited effectiveness in reducing accidents or increasing safe
behaviour or attitudes.
We also made a simple calculation to transform the effects
found out in the survey into reductions in fatalities resulting from
railway trespassing. This resulted in an estimate that a 10-year
nationwide education programme directed at 10-year-old school-
children would cost about 3 million euro and reduce the number of
trespassing fatalities approximately by one, corresponding to
approximately 1% of all trespassing fatalities over a 10-year period.
The calculation does not directly match the situation in this pilot
test but does provide a rough estimate of the possible effect of this
kind of measure on the number of trespassing fatalities. It is also
concluded that this kind of rail safety lesson is not necessary cost
effective, since our rough calculation estimated the cost of a 10-
year education programme to be about 3 million euro, which
exceeds the estimated benefits resulting from one less fatality
(valued at about 2 million). However, it is important to be noted
that the benefits of a railway safety education programme are not
only limited to avoided fatalities, as considered in the calculations,
but also concern the benefits of avoided injuries, reduced
vandalism and fewer delays to trains due to related events and
unauthorised people in the track areas. According to our
experiences the evaluations of educational measures rarely, if
ever, try to convert their findings into reductions in accidents or
their consequences, which should be their main goal. Our approach
shows that the estimate can be drawn in a rational and transparent
way, providing added value to this study even if we take into
account the numerous assumptions and approximations in the
calculation.
Education programmes aiming to increase the knowledge on
safe behaviour in railway environment are important in raising the
awareness of the dangers related to railway trespassing since
based on our earlier studies a substantial number of interviewed
trespassers and people living close to a railway line considered
trespassing to be safe, and so many trespassers and people living
close to a railway line assumed trespassing legal. A similar railway
safety education programme could be implemented in other
countries, given that the main safety message is valid everywhere.
However, the material should be adjusted to comply with local
circumstances (e.g. typical environments where trespassing
occurs). In addition, it should be noted that this measure is
expected to be more effective in raising the level of knowledge
when implemented in schools located in cities and/or countries in
 A. Silla, V.-P. Kallberg / Evaluation and Program Planning 55 (2016) 9–16
which the children’s level of knowledge is not as high in the before
phase as in our pilot schools.
This study had some limitations that should be kept in mind
when generalising the results. First, the researchers did not have
the power to randomly assign children to different classes and thus
it is possible that the classes differed for some unknown variable
that influenced their levels of change over time. Moreover, the
different groups of schoolchildren were taught by different
teachers, therefore there were likely variations in how the lesson
was presented.
Second, the study periods for pilot tests in RESTRAIL project
were limited and did not allow the collection of data on long term
effects of the education programme. It is likely that the effect will
diminish over the time unless the railway safety lessons are
repeated. Therefore, it is emphasised that the cost-benefit
analysis of the education programme is by no means intended
to be definitive, but rather provides a rough estimate of the
quantitative effect of the measure. The authors would like to note
that the collection of long term effects (e.g. one year after the
lesson) of this kind of education programme can be challenging
since rather often, at least in Finland, the school classes have a
different teacher every year which complicates to the collection of
evaluation data.
Third, due to the lack of data on the frequency of railway
trespassing this study was solely based on surveys. In optimal
design each school should be linked to one or several trespassing
sites and the number of trespasses of schoolchildren would have
been monitored in these sites during the study. However, due to
the open nature of the Finnish railway environment the
identification of unofficial paths across the railway lines in
Tampere region and the supervision of those paths would have
required extensive amount of resources and thus it was not
practical.
Lastly, the study can be criticised for the lack of appropriate
control group. The challenge of finding a proper control group
applies to all evaluation studies related to railway trespassing
and not only education programmes. In optimal situation the
railway environment (i.e. the extent of fencing, number of
unauthorised paths and number of legal crossing possibilities)
near the control group should be similar as near the treatment
group. One option to solve this challenge is to take both the
control and treatment group from the same school. However, in
practice this is not so simple since (a) we need to have a school
located near railway lines, (b) the school should have more than
one class per grade, (c) we should ascertain that the children
from treatment group do not discuss about the correct answers
of the survey with the children from control group, and (d) the
teachers should be committed to the education programme.
However, even if we could have found and used a proper control
group, it would not have changed the fact that the effect of our
railway safety lesson in the form it was realised in our study is
fairly small. This is the case because lack of control group in a
before-after study typically leads to overestimation of the
positive effect of a measure.
7. Lesson learned and future research
The evaluation of future education programmes regarding
railway safety is strongly recommended since at the moment there
is hardly any information on their effectiveness. The implementa-
tion of the education programme should be carefully planned and
allow the collection of proper evaluation data both before and after
the intervention, including the long term effects of the programme
(e.g. one year after the lesson). Furthermore, the evaluation on the
effects by gender and possible inclusion of a control group to
15
eliminate potential extraneous factors are proposed for future
research.
Based on the studies conducted so far, even though education
and campaigns can reduce railway trespassing and related
accidents to certain degree, their effects can be rather limited.
Therefore, education and campaigns are not necessarily always the
most effective and cost-efficient measures. When possible, a wider
range of measures and their combinations as described in the
RESTRAIL project (RESTRAIL, 2014b) should be considered.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Juha Luoma from VTT for his valuable
comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
This study was supported by the European Commission under
the 7th Framework Programme (RESTRAIL project; Grant Agree-
ment No. 285153).
References
Dragutinovic, N., & Twisk, D. (2006). The effectiveness of road safety education—A
literature review. The Netherlands: R-2006-6- SWOV Institute for Road Safety
Research Available in Internet: hhttp://www.swov.nl/rapport/r-2006-06.pdfi
(accessed March 6, 2014).
European Railway Agency (2014). ERADIS—European railway agency database of
interoperability and safety. hhttps://eradis.era.europa.eu/i (accessed July 1, 2014).
Finnish Rail Administration (2007–2009). Finnish railway statistics. Separate
publications for each year. Helsinki: Finnish Rail Administration hhttp://
portal.liikennevirasto.fi/sivu/www/f/aineistopalvelut/julkaisut/kirjasto/
trafiikki#.U7KdzVXyU-Ui (accessed July 1, 2014).
Finnish Transport Agency (2010–2012). Finnish railway statistics. Separate
publications for each year. Helsinki: Finnish Transport Agency hhttp://
portal.liikennevirasto.fi/sivu/www/f/aineistopalvelut/julkaisut/kirjasto/
trafiikki#.U7KdzVXyU-Ui (accessed July 1, 2014).
Finnish Transport Safety Agency (2014). Rautatieturvallisuustietoa. hhttp://
www.rautatieturvallisuus.fi/rautatieturvallisuusi (accessed July 1, 2014).
Lobb, B., Harré, N., & Suddendorf, T. (2001). An evaluation of a suburban railway
pedestrian crossing safety programme. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33,
157–165.
Lobb, B., Harré, N., & Terry, N. (2003). An evaluation of four types of railway
pedestrian crossing safety intervention. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35,
487–494.
Lobb, B. (2006). Trespassing on the tracks: A review of railway pedestrian safety
research. Journal of Safety Research, 37, 359–365.
Network Rail (2014). Safety education. hhttp://www.networkrail.co.uk/safety-
education/i (accessed August 15, 2014).
Operation Lifesaver (2014). Rail safety education. hhttp://oli.org/i (accessed March 6,
2014).
Railway Safety and Standards Board (2005). Trespass and access via the platform end.
Final report. Halcrow Group Limited in partnership with Human Engineering
hhttp://rssb.co.uki (accessed June 12, 2007).
RESTRAIL (2014a). Reduction of suicides and trespasses on railway property. hhttp://
www.restrail.eu/i (accessed August 15, 2014).
RESTRAIL (2014b). Railway suicides and trespassing accidents: How to prevent the
incidents and mitigate the consequences?. hhttp://restrail.eu/toolbox/i (accessed
August, 15th, 2014).
Savage, I. (2006). Does public education improve rail-highway crossing safety?
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 310–316.
Silla, A. (2012). Improving safety on Finnish railways by prevention of trespassing.
VTT Science, 27. 49 p.+app. 43 p. Espoo 2012.
Silla, A., & Luoma, J. (2009). Trespassing on Finnish railways: Identification of
problem sites and characteristics of trespassing behaviour. European Transport
Research Review, 1, 47–53.
Silla, A., & Luoma, J. (2011). Effect of three countermeasures against the illegal
crossing of railway tracks. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1089–1094.
Silla, A., & Luoma, J. (2012). Opinions on railway trespassing of people living close
to a railway line. Safety Science, 50, 62–67.
TrackSAFE (2014). Teachers. hhttp://www.tracksafeeducation.com.au/Teachers.aspxi
(accessed August 15, 2014).
TrackSAFE NZ (2014). Education. hhttp://www.railsafety.co.nz/education.htmli
(accessed August 15, 2014).
Twisk, D. A. M., Vlakveld, W. P., Commandeur, J. J. F., Shope, J. T., & Kok, G. (2014).
Five road safety education programmes for young adolescent pedestrians and
cyclists: A multi-programme evaluation in a filed setting. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 66, 55–61.
Dr. Anne Silla (Female) is a Senior Scientist and has worked at the VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland since 2005. She received her M.Sc. (Technology) from the
Tampere University of Technology in 2005 and her Ph.D. in Transportation Engineering
from Aalto University in 2013. Silla has also participated in a two-year TRANSPORTNET
16 A. Silla, V.-P. Kallberg / Evaluation and Program Planning 55 (2016) 9–16

Marie Curie Programme which enabled her to spent two years in Germany (2007–
2009) and participate in several international projects and courses meant for doctoral
students in the field of transport. Her research activities have mainly focused on
improving the safety of road and railway traffic. Examples of her research topics
include assessment of safety effects of ITS directed to vulnerable road users (VRUITS),
prevention of railway trespassing and railway suicides (RESTRAIL + national projects),
improving the safety of level crossings (national projects) and safety management
(national projects).
Mr. Veli-Pekka Kallberg, M.Sc.Tech. (Transport Technology), Principal Research Sci-
entist (retired 31.5.2015), graduated from the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT)
in 1976 and has since then worked at VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. For
most of his professional career he has worked in various kinds of road safety research
projects. Since the late 1990’s he has focused on rail safety and lead several research
projects concerning the safety of Finnish railways and especially the safety of level
crossings. He has been involved in several EU projects, including the project RESTRAIL
aiming to reduce railway suicides and trespassing accidents.