active commuting and school choice policy
TRANSCRIPT
Active Commuting in a District
with a School Choice PolicyChris Pulley
Overview Background Determinants Purpose Methodology Results Discussion Conclusion
Background
Auto and Active Commuting to School
Sources: McDonald et al., 2011; McDonald, 2007
1969 20090%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
47.7%
12.7%17.1%
55.0%
Commuting Percentage by Year
WalkAuto
Year
Com
mut
ing
Perc
enta
ge
Physical Activity Recommendations 60 Minutes of MVPA daily
Strategy to reduce obesity
2/15 PA objectives related to active commuting among 5-15 year olds
Determinants
Distance to School
Parental perception of safety along route
School Siting School Type
Changing School Options - MPS
Framework Ecological and Cognitive Active Commuting
(ECAC) Extension of the Social Ecological Model Interaction between urban form and sociodemographic
variables that influence student transport mode (McMillan, 2005)
Urban form Sidewalk length Street lighting
Sociodemographic Parental decision-making Neighborhood and traffic safety
Purpose Are school demographic variables related to the
proportion of students who actively commute at a school?
Is distance to school related to the proportion of students who actively commute at a school?
Methodology Observation study of student transport mode
72 public schools serving K-12 in MPS All K-5 (N=24) and K-8(N=19) schools were invited to
participate 43 schools were contacted
Four excluded Total for study (N=39)
Procedures Observations took place in April and May of 2010
4 observations/school (2x during am arrival and pm dismissal)
Graduate research assistant and student observers
Observation length
Statistical Analyses Observation sheet tallied twice by two different
data collectors
Each sheet entered into MS Access twice by two different data entry staff
Database imported into SAS version 9.2
STATA IC/11.1 to analyze observation and transportation data
Independent VariablesMean Distance to School District Transportation data GIS and street network connecting each student to his/her
school
Three categories % of students living within walking distance (1/2 mile of
school) % of students living within 1 mile of school % of students living within 2 miles of school
Data Analysis
Demographics Race/Ethnicity: White and Nonwhite/Minority
Low proportion ≤70% nonwhite High proportion >70% nonwhite
Free/Reduced Priced-Lunch Status (FRPL) Obtained from district transportation data Low status ≤70% or less FRPL eligible High status >70% or more FRPL eligible
School Type Neighborhood School
Located within the neighborhood where a student lives
Magnet School Located outside of the neighborhood where a
student lives
Outcome VariablesPrevalence of active commuting Separated by % of walkers and % of bikers per school
# of students walking and biking before and after school/total enrollment of each school
Results Demographics
District Transportation Data
Observation Data
Regression Analyses
Demographics
Table 1: School Characteristics (N=39)All schools Neighborhood Schools Magnet Schools t-test p
N (%) 39 26 (67%) 13 (33%)
% Minority 69 69 68 0.06 0.95
% FRPL 61 62 60 0.24 0.81
Distance to School; mean (SD) 1.8 (0.5) 1.7 (0.4) 2.2 (0.5) 3.42 0.0016 *
% within walking distance 12.3 14.0 8.7 -2.55 0.0150 *
% within 1 mile of school 31.7 36.2 22.5 -3.08 0.0039 *
% within 2 miles of school 64.2 70.2 52 -3.11 0.0036 *
*Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
District Transportation Data
Table 2: Distance to School stratified by school characteristics (N=39)
Minority Free or Reduced Price Lunch School Type
<70% Minority
> 70% Minority
<70% FRPL
> 70%FRPL
Neighborhood Magnet
Distance to School (SD) 1.7(0.4) 1.9 (0.5) 1.8(0.5) 1.9 (0.5) 1.7 (0.4) 2.2 (0.5)*
% within walking distance 13.5 11.5 13.6 10.9 14.0 8.7*
% within 1 mile of school 35.7 29.1 32.9 30.3 36.2 22.5*
% within 2 miles of school
69.6 60.8 64.5 63.9 70.2 52.2*
*Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Observation Data
% Auto Commuters,
33.5
% Active Commuters;
19.8
% Other; 46.7
Transport Mode
Auto and Active Commuting
Table 3: Auto and active commuting stratified by school characteristics (N=39)
Minority Free or Reduced Price Lunch School Type
<70% Minority
> 70% Minority
<70% FRPL
> 70%FRPL
Neighborhood Magnet
% Auto Commuters 42.9 27.6* 40.0 26.7* 34.4 31.7
% Active Commuters 25.5 16.3* 22.9 16.6 22.6 14.2
% Walkers 20.4 15.6 18.9 15.9 20.2 11.9 *
% Bicyclists 5.1 0.7* 4.0 0.6* 2.4 2.3
*Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Table 4: Summary of the percentage of active commuters, regressed on % minority, % free or reduced priced lunch, school type, and % within walking distance (N=39)Variable Model 1
% Active Commutersb/p
Model 2% Active Commuters
b/p
Model 3% Active Commuters
b/p
Model 4% Active Commuters
b/p% Minority -0.16*
(0.04)-0.21(0.69)
-0.00(1.00)
-0.39(0.40)
% Free or Reduced Priced Lunch
0.05(0.92)
-0.16(0.76)
0.27(0.55)
School Type -8.76*(0.05)
-2.00(0.63)
% Within Walking Distance
1.13***(0.00)
Observations 39 39 39 39
Regression Analyses
p-values in parentheses* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Discussion Relationship between distance to school and
prevalence of active commuting
Average distance nearly 2 miles Not a reasonable walking distance
Nearly 20% prevalence of active commuting Above national average of 13% (McDonald et al., 2011)
Discussion Most commonly observed transport mode was
other Distance (>1 mile) District provides bus service to students living >0.5 mile
from school
Barriers in built environment (McMillan, 2007) Urban form (incomplete sidewalks, unmarked
crosswalks) – not assessed
Distance to School School Type (neighborhood vs. magnet schools)
Neighborhood schools closer than magnet schools
Auto commuting due to parental safety concerns Not assessed but influences transport mode (Panter et
al., 2010)
Active Commuting % of active commuters and minority status
High minority schools have a higher prevalence of active commuting
Lack of transportation is a factor (Mendoza et al., 2010).
School Type
% Within Walking Distance
Transport Mode Auto commuting related to minority and lunch
status Distance to school and % of auto commuters High minority student populations and high % of
students receiving FRPL Associated with a more diverse population Less access to vehicles – walk or bike to school (Pont et al.,
2009)
Regression Interpretation Demographics not associated with active
commuting when school type was added School type not associated when % within walking
distance was added
Limitations Limited number of observations
May not reflect the patterns of student transport mode throughout year
Built environment characteristics not assessed Influence transport mode
Contributions Unique methodology for observing student
transport mode
Appears to be first to assess the relationship between specific school demographics and prevalence of active commuting
Future Recommendations Consider using direct observations as
methodology
Assess effect of urban form on active commuting
Consider results in context of school choice Active commuting more common when schools were
within walking distance