What's "quickest and Easiest?": Parental Decision Making About School Trip Mode

Overview

Journal Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Nutritional Sciences
Orthopedics
Social Sciences

Date 2010 Aug 10

PMID 20691063

Citations 40

Authors

Guy Ej Faulkner

Vanessa Richichi

Ronald N Buliung

Caroline Fusco

Fiona Moola

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The potential benefits of active school travel (AST) are widely recognized, yet there is consistent evidence of a systematic decline in the use of active modes of transportation to school since the middle part of the 20th century. This study explored parental accounts of the school travel mode choice decision-making process.

Methods: Thirty-seven parents of children (17 who walked; 20 who were driven) from four elementary schools in Toronto, Canada participated in semi-structured interviews. The schools varied with respect to walkability of the built environment and socio-economic status. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified a two-stage decision-making process.

Results: An initial decision concerned the issue of escorting or chauffeuring a child to/from school. This decision appeared to be primarily influenced by concerns about traffic, the child's personal safety, and the child's maturity and cognitive ability regarding navigating his/her way to/from school safely. Following the escort decision, parents considered mode choice, typically selecting what they perceived to be the easiest and most convenient way to travel. The ascription of convenience to the various modes of transportation was influenced by perceptions of travel time and/or distance to/from school. Convenience became a particularly salient theme for parents who found it necessary to complete multi-activity trip chains.

Conclusions: The school travel mode choice decision process is complex. Future research and practice should continue to address safety concerns that are typically the focus of active school transport initiatives while addressing more explicitly the behavioural cost of competing mode choices.

Citing Articles

Active School Commuting in School Children: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Future Research Implications.

Lam H, Jayasinghe S, Ahuja K, Hills A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(20).

PMID: 37887667 PMC: 10606062. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20206929.

Parental perspectives on the decision-making process on transport mode choice in adolescents: a qualitative study with mothers and fathers.

Tristram C, Reimers A, Renninger D, Beck F, Demetriou Y, Marzi I Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1227612.

PMID: 37780145 PMC: 10539588. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1227612.

Validating the Perceived Active School Travel Enablers and Barriers-Parent (PASTEB-P) Questionnaire to Support Intervention Programming and Research.

Clark A, Thomas M, Buttazzoni A, Adams M, Coen S, Seabrook J Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(10).

PMID: 37239600 PMC: 10218046. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20105874.

Children's intervention participation is associated with more positive beliefs towards active school transportation among parents.

Forsberg H, Rutberg S, Nyberg L, Lindqvist A Health Promot Int. 2023; 38(2).

PMID: 36932992 PMC: 10024479. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/daad016.

Perceived Safety Influencing Active Travel to School-A Built Environment Perspective.

Wangzom D, White M, Paay J Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(2).

PMID: 36673781 PMC: 9859122. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20021026.

References

Pabayo R, Gauvin L . Proportions of students who use various modes of transportation to and from school in a representative population-based sample of children and adolescents, 1999. Prev Med. 2007; 46(1):63-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.032. View

Moodie M, Haby M, Galvin L, Swinburn B, Carter R . Cost-effectiveness of active transport for primary school children - Walking School Bus program. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009; 6:63. PMC: 2758827. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-63. View

Merom D, Tudor-Locke C, Bauman A, Rissel C . Active commuting to school among NSW primary school children: implications for public health. Health Place. 2005; 12(4):678-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.09.003. View

Raynor D, COLEMAN K, Epstein L . Effects of proximity on the choice to be physically active or sedentary. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1998; 69(1):99-103. DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1998.10607674. View

Greves H, Lozano P, Liu L, Busby K, Cole J, Johnston B . Immigrant families' perceptions on walking to school and school breakfast: a focus group study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007; 4:64. PMC: 2228323. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-64. View

Spanier P, Marshall S, Faulkner G . Tackling the obesity pandemic: a call for sedentary behaviour research. Can J Public Health. 2006; 97(3):255-7. PMC: 6976261. View

Swinburn B, Egger G, Raza F . Dissecting obesogenic environments: the development and application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing environmental interventions for obesity. Prev Med. 1999; 29(6 Pt 1):563-70. DOI: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0585. View

Bringolf-Isler B, Grize L, Mader U, Ruch N, Sennhauser F, Braun-Fahrlander C . Personal and environmental factors associated with active commuting to school in Switzerland. Prev Med. 2007; 46(1):67-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.015. View

Fesperman C, Evenson K, Rodriguez D, Salvesen D . A comparative case study on active transport to and from school. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008; 5(2):A40. PMC: 2396992. View

10.

Pont K, Ziviani J, Wadley D, Bennett S, Abbott R . Environmental correlates of children's active transportation: a systematic literature review. Health Place. 2009; 15(3):827-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.02.002. View

11.

Buliung R, Mitra R, Faulkner G . Active school transportation in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: an exploration of trends in space and time (1986-2006). Prev Med. 2009; 48(6):507-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.03.001. View

12.

Panter J, Jones A, van Sluijs E . Environmental determinants of active travel in youth: a review and framework for future research. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008; 5:34. PMC: 2483993. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-5-34. View

13.

Davison K, Werder J, Lawson C . Children's active commuting to school: current knowledge and future directions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008; 5(3):A100. PMC: 2483568. View

14.

Cole R, Leslie E, Donald M, Cerin E, Owen N . Residential proximity to school and the active travel choices of parents. Health Promot J Austr. 2007; 18(2):127-34. DOI: 10.1071/he07127. View

15.

Tremblay M, Shields M, Laviolette M, Craig C, Janssen I, Connor Gorber S . Fitness of Canadian children and youth: results from the 2007-2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep. 2010; 21(1):7-20. View

16.

Kerr J, Rosenberg D, Sallis J, Saelens B, Frank L, Conway T . Active commuting to school: Associations with environment and parental concerns. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006; 38(4):787-94. DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000210208.63565.73. View

17.

Eyler A, Brownson R, Doescher M, Evenson K, Fesperman C, Litt J . Policies related to active transport to and from school: a multisite case study. Health Educ Res. 2007; 23(6):963-75. DOI: 10.1093/her/cym061. View

18.

Wen L, Fry D, Rissel C, Dirkis H, Balafas A, Merom D . Factors associated with children being driven to school: implications for walk to school programs. Health Educ Res. 2007; 23(2):325-34. DOI: 10.1093/her/cym043. View

19.

Epstein L . Integrating theoretical approaches to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 15(4):257-65. DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00083-x. View

20.

Ahlport K, Linnan L, Vaughn A, Evenson K, Ward D . Barriers to and facilitators of walking and bicycling to school: formative results from the non-motorized travel study. Health Educ Behav. 2007; 35(2):221-44. DOI: 10.1177/1090198106288794. View