Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 95, Issue 6, pp 859–868 | Cite as

Environmental and Socio-demographic Factors Associated with 6–10-Year-Old Children’s School Travel in Urban and Non-urban Settings

  • Daniela RodriguesEmail author
  • Cristina Padez
  • Aristides M. Machado-Rodrigues


Walking or bicycling to school is an important source of physical activity and may help prevent childhood obesity. However, active commuting has been declining in recent decades. The purposes of this study were to explore travel characteristics in children and examine factors associated with active commuting in children living in urban and non-urban setting. Participants were 834 parents and corresponding children aged 6–10 years, living in the district of Coimbra, Portugal. Data were collected during April–June of 2013 and 2014. Anthropometric measures (height, weight, waist circumference) were taken in children. Mode shift and child/family demographics were assessed by a parental questionnaire. School and home addresses were geocoded and the shortest route (meters) was taken in consideration. Although car is the most common way of travel to school, active transportation is significantly more prevalent in children living in the non-urban setting. Different determinants were found associated with active travel according to the level of urbanization. The adjusted logistic regression revealed that, independently of the urbanization, children whose mothers actively commute to work, whose parents reported their neighbor as safe to walk, and children living less than 2000 m from school were significantly more likely to walk to school. Present findings highlight the need to consider models with different levels, including individual, social, and environmental characteristics, when developing interventions and policies to promote active transport to school.


Active transport Environment design Public health Child Portugal 



The authors are grateful to the schools, children, and parents participating in this study. This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) under grant SFRH/BD/90737/2012. The authors also want to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.


  1. 1.
    Tudor-Locke C, Ainsworth BE, Popkin BM. Active commuting to school: an overlooked source of childrens’ physical activity? Sports Med. 2001;31(5):309–13. Accessed 8 July 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davison KK, Werder JL, Lawson CT. Children’s active commuting to school: current knowledge and future directions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(3):A100. Accessed 3 Nov 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Sluijs EMF, Fearne VA, Mattocks C, Riddoch C, Griffin SJ, Ness A. The contribution of active travel to children’s physical activity levels: cross-sectional results from the ALSPAC study. Prev Med. 2009;48(6):519–24. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pizarro AN, Ribeiro JC, Marques EA, Mota J, Santos MP. Is walking to school associated with improved metabolic health? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10(1):12. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sirard JR, Slater ME. Walking and bicycling to school: a review. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2008;2:372–96.
  6. 6.
    Oliver M, Badland H, Mavoa S, Witten K, Kearns R, Ellaway A, et al. Environmental and socio-demographic associates of children’s active transport to school: a cross-sectional investigation from the URBAN study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:70–82.
  7. 7.
    Mammen G, Stone MR, Buliung R, Faulkner G. School travel planning in Canada: identifying child, family, and school-level characteristics associated with travel mode shift from driving to active school travel. J Transp Health. 2014;1(4):288–94. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grize L, Bringolf-Isler B, Martin E, Braun-Fahrländer C. Trend in active transportation to school among Swiss school children and its associated factors: three cross-sectional surveys 1994, 2000 and 2005. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:28. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salmon J, Timperio A, Cleland V, Venn A. Trends in children’s physical activity and weight status in high and low socio-economic status areas of Melbourne, Victoria, 1985-2001. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2005;29(4):337–42. Accessed 4 Jan 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buliung RN, 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pizarro AN, Santos MP, Ribeiro JC, Mota J. Physical activity and active transport are predicted by adolescents’ different built environment perceptions. Aust J Public Health. 2012;20(1):5–10. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loureiro N, de Matos MG. Why don’t they walk or cycle? Reflections on active home–school transportation among Portuguese adolescents: the role of environmental perceptions. Urban Plan Transp Res. 2014;2(1):265–273.
  13. 13.
    INE. Censos 2011. Instituto Nacional de Estatística. Published 2011. Accessed 20 Apr 2016.
  14. 14.
    Carver A, Timperio A, Hesketh K, Crawford D. Are children and adolescents less active if parents restrict their physical activity and active transport due to perceived risk? Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(11):1799–805. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Panter J, Corder K, Griffin SJ, Jones AP, van Sluijs EM. Individual, socio-cultural and environmental predictors of uptake and maintenance of active commuting in children: longitudinal results from the SPEEDY study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:83. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Kann DHH, Kremers SPJ, Gubbels JS, et al. The association between the physical environment of primary schools and active school transport. Environ Behav. 2015;47(4):418–35. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Napier MA, Brown BB, Werner CM, Gallimore J. Walking to school: community design and child and parent barriers. J Environ Psychol. 2011;31:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loitz CC, Spencer-Cavaliere N. Exploring the barriers and facilitators to children’s active transportation to and from school from the perspectives of practitioners. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(8):1128–35. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van KDHH, Kremers SPJ, De Vries SI, De Vries NK, Jansen MWJ. Parental active transportation routines (PATRns) as a moderator of the association between neighborhood characteristics and parental influences and active school transportation. Environ Behav. 2016;48(7):946–65. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rodrigues D, Padez C, Machado-Rodrigues AM. Active parents, active children: the importance of parental organized physical activity in children’s extracurricular sport participation. J Child Health Care. 2017;22:1–12. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodrigues D, Padez C, Machado-Rodrigues AM. Prevalence of abdominal obesity and excess weight among Portuguese children and why abdominal obesity should be included in clinical practice. Acta Medica Port. 2018;31(3):159–64. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodrigues D, Padez C, Machado-rodrigues AM. Perceived psychological, cultural, and environmental barriers to sport in children living in urban and non-urban settings in the Midlands, Portugal. Sport Sci Health. 2017;13(3):565–571. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cole TJ, Lobstein T. Extended international (IOTF) body mass index cut-offs for thinness, overweight and obesity. Pediatr Obes. 2012;7(4):284–94. Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarthy HD, Ashwell M. A study of central fatness using waist-to-height ratios in UK children and adolescents over two decades supports the simple message—“keep your waist circumference to less than half your height.”. Int J Obes. 2006;30:988–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monteiro JL. Caracterização dos Espaços Urbanos na RLVT : O contributo da análise discriminante. Rev Estud Reg - Inst Nac Estatística. 2000;2° semestr(1):21–46.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosenberg DE, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Cain KL, Mckenzie TL. Active transportation to school over 2 years in relation to weight status and physical activity. Obesity. 2006;14(10):1771–6. Accessed 7 Apr 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarmiento OL, Lemoine P, Gonzalez SA, et al. Relationships between active school transport and adiposity indicators in school age children from low-, middle- and high-income countries. Int J Obes. 2015;5(2):S107–14. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silva KS, Pizarro AN, Garcia LMT, Mota J, Santos MP. Which social support and psychological factors are associated to active commuting to school? Prev Med. 2014;63:20–3. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mota J, Gomes H, Almeida M, Ribeiro JC, Carvalho J, Santos MP. Active versus passive transportation to school–differences in screen time, socio-economic position and perceived environmental characteristics in adolescent girls. Ann Hum Biol. 2007;34(3):273–82. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pabayo R, Gauvin L, Barnett TA. Longitudinal changes in active transportation to school in Canadian youth aged 6 through 16 years. Pediatrics. 2011;128(2):e404–13. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Duncan S, White K, Mavoa S, Stewart T, Hinckson E, Schofield G. Active transport, physical activity, and distance between home and school in children and adolescents. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(4):447–53. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sirard JR, Ainsworth BE, McIver KL, Pate RR. Prevalence of active commuting at urban and suburban elementary schools in Columbia, SC. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(2):236–7. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ewing R, Schroeer W, Greene W. School location and student travel analysis of factors affecting mode choice. Transp Res Board. 2004;1895:55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Debruijn G, Kremers S, Schaalma H, Vanmechelen W, Brug J. Determinants of adolescent bicycle use for transportation and snacking behavior. Prev Med. 2005;40(6):658–67. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lu W, McKyer ELJ, Lee C, Goodson P, Ory MG, Wang S. Perceived barriers to children’s active commuting to school: a systematic review of empirical, methodological and theoretical evidence. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11(1):140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    DiGuiseppi C, Roberts I, Li L, Allen D. Determinants of car travel on daily journeys to school: cross sectional survey of primary school children. BMJ. 1998;316(7142):1426–8. Accessed 5 Jan 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Braza M, Shoemaker W, Seeley A. Neighborhood design and rates of walking and biking to elementary school in 34 California communities. Am J Health Promot. 2004;19(2):128–36. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oluyomi AO, Lee C, Nehme E, Dowdy D, Ory MG, Hoelscher DM. Parental safety concerns and active school commute: correlates across multiple domains in the home-to-school journey. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carlson JA, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Conway TL, Cain K, Frank LD, et al. Built environment characteristics and parent active transportation are associated with active travel to school in youth age 12-15. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(22):1634–9. Scholar
  41. 41.
    McMillan T, Day K, Boarnet M, Alfonzo M, Anderson C. Johnny walks to school- do es Jane? Sex differences in children’s active travel to school. Child Youth Environ. 2006;16(1):75–89.
  42. 42.
    Pizarro AN, Schipperijn J, Andersen HB, Ribeiro JC, Mota J, Santos MP. Active commuting to school in Portuguese adolescents: using PALMS to detect trips. J Transp Health. 2016;3(3):297–304.

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIAS – Research Centre for Anthropology and Health, Department of Life SciencesFaculty of Science and Tecnology, University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Life SciencesFaculty of Science and Tecnology, University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.High School of Education of ViseuViseuPortugal

Personalised recommendations