Active versus passive commuting to school: what children say.

Abstract: This study was conducted as part of a needs assessment that examined the perceived barriers and resources necessary for the journey to and from school among 6th-grade boys and girls. Three focus groups were conducted with children who reported commuting by car, walking or biking. All data were coded and categorized to allow patterns and themes to emerge. For both passive and active commuters, personal safety and traffic concerns emerged as consistent themes. This information is relevant to the examination of commuting choices among children. It also reveals themes that may inform the development of programs aimed at promoting safe, active commuting.

**********

Physically active lifestyles among youth can help ward off the threat of childhood obesity, a prominent public health concern in the 21st century (Ogden, Flegal, Carroll & Johnson, 2002). Studies have shown that physical activity in youth declines with age; females show greater declines at 7.4% per year compared to males at 2.7% per year (Rowland, 1999; Sallis, 1993). In order for youth to adhere to an active lifestyle, several options for health promotion must be considered. For instance, examination of physical activity opportunities outside of the school day is critical to understanding and implementing effective interventions. In particular, active commuting (e.g., walking, biking) to school has received more attention as a potential strategy for increasing physical activity levels among youth (Tudor-Locke, Ainsworth, & Popkin, 2001). In the United States there has been an increase in the use of personal vehicles for transportation purposes (approximately 80% of the population), including chauffeuring children to and from school (Pucher & Renne, 2003). In an effort to positively impact children's daily physical activity levels, Healthy People 2010 has established health promotion objectives to increase the proportion of trips to school made by walking (from 31% to 50%) and biking (from 2.4% to 5.0%; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2000).

Programs have recently been implemented with a major emphasis on safer routes to school and improved traffic patterns, both of which allow greater opportunity for active commuting (Staunton, Hubsmith & Kallins, 2003; Zaccari, 2003). The state of California has been progressive in implementing changes to the built environment (sidewalks and streets) and traffic policies through its Safe Routes to School initiative (Staunton et al., 2003). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has initiated the Kids-Walk-to-School program that provides health promotion practitioners with resources to implement active commuting programs on a local level. More information about the Kids Walk to School program can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/ kidswalk/index.htm. Major goals of this program are to improve traffic conditions, increase physical activity among children and parents, and increase community awareness about activity and walking for transportation.

Despite the fact that innovative programs are already emerging here and there, little is known more generally about the perceived barriers and resources for active commuting to school among young populations. Most studies to date have examined such perceptions using parental surveys rather than obtaining this information directly from children (Dellinger, 2002; Gielen et al., 2004; Godfrey, Mazzella, Cabrera, & Day, 1997; Pucher & Renne, 2003; Transportation Research Board, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the perceived barriers and resources for active commuting to and from school among sixth grade boys and girls. To thoroughly evaluate these perspectives, focus groups were utilized for data collection. These focus groups provided an in-depth analysis of both active and passive commuting behavior to school among this population.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixth-grade boys and girls were recruited from a single elementary school located within a suburban area in the southwestern United States. This school was surrounded by a business park, a residential area and undeveloped land. At the time of the study, 784 total students (K-6) were enrolled at the school. Over three-quarter of students (81.6%) identified as White, non-Hispanic. The remaining students identified as Hispanic (11.9%), African American (3.1%), Native American (1.7%), and Asian (1.8%). Participants completed a survey on commuting and were identified as active (i.e., students who reported 2 or more days of walking or biking per week) and passive commuters (i.e., students who reported being chauffeured by private vehicle [greater than or equal to] 3 days per week). The commuting survey asked students to respond to questions such as, "During a typical week, how many days do you walk to school?" Eighty-one students completed the community survey; however, only those students who reported walking, biking, or being chauffeured in a private vehicle were recruited for focus groups (n = 61). In this particular school district, elementary school children living greater than or equal to one mile from the school were required to ride the bus or be chauffeured by private vehicle. Therefore, participants who reported arriving at school by bus were not recruited due to the hypothesis that children who rode the bus were unlikely to be a priority population for an active commuting intervention. A total of 27 participants (14 females and 13 males) volunteered to take part in three focus groups. Eleven of the participants were active commuters (5 walkers and 6 bikers) and 16 were passive commuters (i.e., private vehicle riders). The average age of participants was 11.8 [+ or -] 0.5 years. The following proportions were reported for each race/ ethnicity category: 73.4% white, 15.8% Hispanic, 5.3% African American, and 5.3% other race or ethnicity. The Internal Review Board at Arizona State University, as well as the school district's Research and Evaluation Unit approved the study. All participants provided a signed informed consent from a parent or guardian, and also signed a child assent form prior to the beginning of data collection.

FOCUS GROUP PROCEDURES

Focus groups represent a qualitative method of data collection, allowing health promotion researchers and practitioners to gather in-depth, narrative information from priority populations. In essence, the focus group is an interview with an assemblage of individuals who share similar backgrounds and characteristics (Patton, 2002). Within this study, a series of three different focus groups were conducted to gain a diverse set of perspectives, thereby increasing confidence in the patterns and themes that emerged (Krueger, 1994; Patton, 2002).

Three focus groups comprised of 7 (all active), 8 (all passive), and 12 (combination of active and passive) participants were held during the lunch period in a private room at the elementary school. All participating students were asked the same set of open-ended questions: typical commuting mode to and from school, who in the household was the primary decision maker regarding the commute to and from school, and barriers and resources to active commuting. (See Table 1 for a complete list of focus group questions.) Each focus group lasted approximately 50 minutes and was tape-recorded with participant consent. A trained facilitator led the focus groups and kept notes during the process. All tapes were transcribed for analyses purposes and later destroyed upon completion of the study to maintain participants' confidentiality.

DATA ANALYSIS

Focus group transcripts were analyzed using content analysis. According to Patton (2002), content analysis is "used to refer to any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings" (p. 453). Content analysis involves searching the transcribed text (i.e., stated words during the three focus groups) for recurring words and phrases. Pertinent to this content analysis, an inductive approach was utilized to allow for discovery of patterns and themes that emerged from the recurring words and phrases. This process allows openness to the data and does not provide a set framework that directs analysis (Patton, 2002). For example, rather than approaching the data with specific themes, the researcher allows the data to create the themes. Themes are often described as categorical (e.g., enjoyment of physical activity) while patterns are defined as a descriptive finding (e.g., all active commuters reported feeling safe in their neighborhood). All focus group data were thoroughly analyzed on two separate occasions to ensure confidence in the results.

RESULTS

The following sections provide a comprehensive explanation of the major categories of themes identified through the content analysis: decision making, regularity in commuting behavior, safety and traffic concerns, and alternative commuting choices.

DECISION MAKING

Almost all participants (active and passive commuters) stated that their mothers were the usual decision makers concerning the commute to school. Most explained that this was because their mother was home in the mornings more often than their fathers. Additionally, many of the children noted that they were not old enough to make such decisions and took for granted that their parents would be the decision makers. One boy stated, "Well, they're [parents] more responsible than me. They are our parents." Another girl followed up in agreement by saying, "Yes, we don't really get to make decisions about that." Three individuals noted that it was a joint decision between themselves and their parents; one of whom noted that it was his decision, but the route he took on his bike was his parents' choice.

REGULARITY OF COMMUTING BEHAVIOR

Some of the richest and most descriptive data were revealed when participants were asked to explain the reasons for their current choice of transportation mode for getting to and from school. Both active and passive commuters described the consistency of their commuting schedules to school (i.e., this is how they always got to and from school) and also explained why they may get home from school using a different mode. Among the active commuters, the main reasons for getting to school by either walking or biking was the close proximity of their home to the school and the enjoyment of exercise. Active commuters also noted that if they did get to school in a private vehicle, it was often because they were running late and cars were considered faster than walking or biking.

The major patterns that emerged from the passive commuters' responses, concerning reasons for commuting mode were living too far from school, heavily trafficked streets with a high speed limit, and enjoyment of riding in the car. Two of the passive commuters emphasized that they probably lived close enough to walk or bike, but really loved riding in the car. When asked why they preferred the car, they said it was an easier, "lazier" way to get to school because it did not take as much effort as walking or biking.

All children replied that they needed to get home in a different way "sometimes." For both active and passive commuters, the main factors influencing a different commuting mode on the way home were carrying large or heavy school projects, having after-school activities, "getting a ride because I feel like it," getting a flat tire on a bike, friends' influences, household responsibilities, and parents' work schedules. The impact of parents' work schedules was a strongly emphasized reason for using different commuting modes to school in the morning versus home in the afternoon. Many of the passive commuters expressed the need to change their commuting mode from private vehicle to walking because one or both of their parents were working and could not pick them up. A boy replied, "Sometimes my dad drives me in the morning but can't after, so I walk."

Active commuters strongly articulated that having extra items (i.e., bags, projects, etc.) to carry was the main reason for an occasional passive commuting mode (e.g., private vehicle) home. One girl said, "Sometimes...when we have a big project my parents have to take me; or, if I have a doctor's appointment after school, they'll pick me up." Additionally, they stated that if one or both parents were able to pick them up in a private vehicle (due to a flexible work schedule), they were happy to get a ride home from time to time. When asked to explain why they were happy to get a ride home, the majority felt that it was simply "nice" to have a break from walking or biking. However, there was also a consensus that if the weather was bad (i.e., raining) they were happy to be in a private vehicle and not get rained on. This was illustrated by the response from an active commuting boy who said, "Well, if it's raining or something, I usually get a ride [in a car], but sometimes I'll still ride my bike."

CONCERNS ABOUT PERSONAL SAFETY AND TRAFFIC

An additional theme that emerged from all three focus groups was one of (real or perceived) personal safety issues and concerns, including recent or memorable kidnappings, crimes in the neighborhood, and heavily trafficked streets. News reports on kidnapping in the surrounding area appeared to strongly influence the choice of commuting mode to school for both active and passive commuters. All participants noted that both they and their parents felt safer driving in a car to school after such news reports. One participant stated that she lived close enough to walk or bike, but "my morn likes to take me to school." Another participant noted that her mother and grandmother were very concerned about her safety on the way to school. She specifically said

Sometimes I am with my grandma and like my mom, she doesn't want me to walk to school, even though I am just a little ways away over there. People have been getting kidnapped and raped and murdered and stuff, so she wants me to be safe when I go to school.

Several female active commuters said that they did not like to walk or bike by themselves because they were afraid. One female active commuter felt that she would not walk or bike anymore if strangers were around her neighborhood because it would frighten her too much.

Heavily trafficked streets were another safety concern of the participants and they also expressed that their parents would not allow them to walk or bike because of the "busy streets." One student said that he lived close to school, but took part in a carpool. When asked to explain why he was in a carpool, he said it was "due to the main road I would have to cross to get to the school walking or biking." Another passive commuter confirmed this concern by saying, "Some kids walk or bike that I know and I think I'd like to do it, but there is a really busy road; I don't want to cross it walking or biking."

CHANGE CAN BE DIFFICULT

For passive commuters, changing the way that they get to and from school would be difficult, if not impossible. For example, the students attending this elementary school because of boundary exception (i.e., attending a school outside of their neighborhood) noted that if the school and its boundaries changed, they could change their commuting patterns. They also stated that this was highly unlikely and therefore they would not start walking or biking "any time soon." Additionally, most passive commuters stated that living closer or having a car break down would mean that they would have no choice but to walk or bike to school. These commuters again expressed that these scenarios were unlikely. Some stated that they did live close enough to actively commute but preferred to be dropped off by a parent. Others noted that their parents' work schedule would have to change in order to allow the opportunity to walk or bike to school.

Active commuters, on the other hand, noted weather, flat tires and condition of bicycle, after-school programs, and big projects as major contributors to getting to school in another way (e.g., parent drops off, carpool). These conditions were also considered to be rare or at least occasional events. There was not a commonly stated desire to get to and from school in another way among either the active or passive commuters.

Active commuters repeatedly stated that they would continue walking or biking to school. Some participants who walked said that they might choose to bike sometimes. Another active commuter noted, "I could walk, but it's easier and faster to get here on bike." The majority of passive commuters noted that, if barriers such as busy traffic and household location were removed, they would walk, bike, inline skate, or use a motorized bike. The reasons stated for choosing these alternative forms of commuting included "walking and biking is more fun," "walking is safer than biking," and "I'd walk in groups."

DISCUSSION

This qualitative study provides information relevant to the examination of commuting choices among children. It also reveals barrier and resource themes that may inform interventions aimed at promoting safe, active commuting among youth. Few studies have utilized a qualitative approach to identify feelings, beliefs, and perceptions of commuting to school among younger populations. The current study provides a series of important themes that emerged from the data collection and analysis, such as the regularity and comfort of current commuting patterns and concerns regarding safety and traffic.

In a recent study by Timperio and colleagues (2004), researchers asked children and their parents about their perceptions of safety and traffic in their neighborhoods. Students were recruited from 19 elementary schools in Australia that represented high and low socioeconomic areas. A total of 919 families with 10-12 year old children participated. Parents were asked how often their child walked or rode a bike to a number of different destinations, including to school. Parents were also asked to report what they believed to be a reasonable walking distance for their children and whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about their neighborhood and its traffic, road safety, and public transport. Children were also asked to identify their agreement or disagreement with four specific statements about traffic, strangers, safety and sports facilities in their neighborhood. Response comparisons were made between the parents and children. While these authors did not examine perceptions as they specifically relate to active commuting, they were able to identify that children did not believe that traffic was heavy or that roads were dangerous. However, similar to the current study, children did report that strangers were something to worry about and their belief that their parents also worried about strangers in the neighborhood (Timperio et al., 2004). Children in the present study, in contrast to the results from Timperio, et al. (2004), repeatedly noted that busy roads and heavy traffic were deterrents to being active on the way to school. The difference in the study may reflect local differences in traffic levels, although neither study collected such data.

While the increased public health attention on active commuting to school may encourage some schools and communities to explore this strategy for physical activity promotion, it may not be entirely feasible for others. Based on the findings herein, it is possible that attempting to change commuting behavior from a passive to an active mode may not be feasible or sustainable for all younger populations, particularly those facing difficult, typically non-modifiable barriers (i.e., boundary exception policies, location of household, and rigidity of parents' schedules). Future planning for school building development should consider the impact of location as it relates to easy, safe access from local residential areas by means of active commuting means to residential areas. As an example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; 2003) released a report that examined the relationship between school locations, the built environment (i.e., sidewalks, curbs, and buildings), commuting patterns to school, and environmental impacts of commuting choices. This EPA report reinforced that living close to schools ([less than or equal to] 1 mile) is an important factor for children when it comes to making decisions about commuting to and from school. Additionally, the authors noted that the presence or absence of sidewalks significantly influences commuting choices. While the promotion of active commuting has potential to increase physical activity among students living closer to schools, it does not appear feasible for those living further away. It is interesting to note that the school in the current study bordered a new subdivision with sidewalks and safe routes (e.g., crossing guards, walking groups); yet, active commuting to school was not the norm for students. It should be noted that as these new neighborhoods grow up and the neighborhood's age demographic changes, homes situated close to schools may be come less available or more expensive to purchase, forcing young families to choose to live further away from schools.

Additional studies have examined parent perceptions about safety on the way to school and barriers to active commuting. For example, Dellinger (2002) asked parents (via surveys) to report their perceived barriers to active commuting behaviors. The most significant barriers were long distances, traffic danger, adverse weather, crime danger, and restricting school policy. Another survey of parent perception was conducted in the state of Washington by transportation and planning experts (Godfrey et al., 1997). These authors reported that the main reasons that parents chose to chauffeur children to school in private vehicle included fear for child's personal safety, long distance to school, unsafe traffic conditions, relative youth of the child, inclement weather, lack of sidewalk, and a lack of other children to walk with. Finally, Lee and Rowe (1994) elicited responses via questionnaire from parents and children living in the United Kingdom regarding their perceived risks of the journey to school. Parents reported concern for traffic (e.g., car and pedestrian) accidents as the greatest risk, followed by bullying, abduction, bad weather, and injury. Children, on the other hand perceived that others' smoking behavior (e.g., peer pressure) on the way to school, being bullied, being abducted, unattended dogs, and others' negative behavior (e.g., vandalism) were the greatest risks involved with walking to school.

Many of the aforementioned findings, even those reflecting only parents' perspectives, are similar to the current exploration of children's thoughts, perceptions and feelings about walking to school. Specifically, these findings emphasize issues related to long distances to school, heavy traffic, personal safety, and crime danger. In all of the above studies, parents and children noted weather as a barrier to walking. While this was not mentioned by students in the current study, it is not surprising due to the typically agreeable weather in the state of Arizona during the school year. With regards to planning for active commuting interventions, it will be important to focus on the most modifiable factors. These appear to primarily represent environmental and policy concerns that govern traffic and safety issues. In addition, a comprehensive education program would be necessary to combat perceptions that limit active commuting in situations where it is possible. Since children identify their parents as the primary source of decision making with regards to commuting mode, this education must be designed to primarily target the parent in an effort to sway social norms in favor of children's active commuting behaviors.

As the promotion of active commuting, and subsequent implementation of interventions increases, it is clear that children's perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about the commute to school should be explored. These findings allow both practitioners and researchers to understand the com muting needs of children and to provide insight as to the feasibility of changing commuting behaviors. In addition to perceptions and beliefs of children, it is important to examine current commuting patterns of young people and the conditions (i.e., walking and biking suitability) of the built environment surrounding schools. Such an examination would expand on the current study to consider environmental and neighborhood influences on commuting behaviors. This study builds a useful foundation for health promotion practitioners, researchers, and educators who are interested in active commuting programs as a means to increase physical activity opportunities for young people.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

This study was exploratory in nature and can certainly not reveal all of the perceived barriers or enablers to being an active commuter among elementary school children. Additionally, focus group results may sometimes contain a bias, due to the nature of the data collection process. These results should be seen as one part of a foundation to build greater understanding about the reasons children commute to school the way they do.

SUMMARY

Overall, the findings of this study are stimulating, provide new insight about children's commuting patterns to and from school, and enable researchers and practitioners to build upon existing information. We are hopeful that the methods used for this study can be used by others in the field of physical activity promotion, health behavior, and transportation.

REFERENCES

Dellinger, A.M. (2002). Barriers to children walking and biking to school--United States, 1999. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Reports, 51(32), 701-704.

Gielen, A.C., DeFranceso, S., Bishai, D., Mahoney, P., Ho, S., & Guyer, B. (2004). Child pedestrians: The role of parental beliefs and practices in promoting safe walking in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Health, 81(4): 545-555.

Godfrey, D., Mazzella, T., Cabrera, I., & Day, S. (1997). Why don't children walk to school? Wenatchee, WA: Washington State Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual State Conference.

Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus group interviews: A practical guide for applied research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lee, T. & Rowe, N. (1994). Parents' and children's perceived risks of the journey to school. Architecture and Behavior, 10(4), 379-389.

Ogden, C.L., Flagel, K.M., Carroll, M.D., & Johnson, C.L. (2002). Prevalence and trends in overweight among U.S. children and adolescents, 1999-2000. Journal of American Medical Association, 288, 1728-1732.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pucher, J. & Renne, J.L. (2003). Socioeconomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transportation Quarterly, 57(3), 49-77.

Rowland, (1999). The biological basis of physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 30, 392-399.

Sallis, J.F. (1993). Epidemiology of physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 33, 403-408.

Staunton, C.E., Hubsmith, D., & Kallins, W. (2003). Promoting safe walking and biking to school: the Marin County success story. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1431-4.

Timperio, A., Crawford, D., Telford, A., Salmon, J. (2004). Perceptions about the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children. Preventive Medicine, 39(1), 39-47.

Transportation Research Board (2002). The relative risks of school travel: A national perspective and guidance for local community risk assessment. (Special Report 269). Washington, DC: Committee on School Transportation Safety.

Tudor-Locke, C., Ainsworth, B.E., & Popkin, B.M. (2001). Active commuting to school: An overlooked source of children's' physical activity? Sports Medicine, 31(5), 309-313.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2000). Healthy People. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Travel and environmental implications of school siting. (Report No. EPA 231-R-03-004). Washington, DC, Author.

Zaccari, V. (2003). Walking to school for better health. Road & Transport Research, 12(1), 70-79.

CHES AREAS

Responsibility I Assessing individual and community needs for health education

Competency A--Obtain health related data about social and cultural environments, growth and development factors, needs, and interests

Competency C--Infer needs for health education on basis of obtained data Sub-competency--analyze needs assessment data)

Responsibility VIII--Apply appropriate research principles and methods in health education

Competency B--Use appropriate qualitative and quantitative research methods

Sarah M. Lee, PhD and Catrine Tudor-Locke, PhD are affiliated with the Department of Exercise and Wellness at Arizona State University East. Address all correspondence to Sarah M. Lee, PhD, 4206 Jefferson Circle South, Chamblee, Georgia 30341; PHONE: [phone]; FAX: [phone]; E-MAIL: [e-mail].

Table 1. Focus group questions

Exploratory Questions

1. Who makes the decision about how you get to school in the morning?

2. What are the reasons for choosing a type of commuting to school?

3. What would have to change for you to commute to school in a
different way?

4. How realistic is it for you to commute to school in a different way?

Concluding Question

1. Is there anything else you would like to tell me?