Next Article in Journal
Landscape Diversity and the Directions of Its Protection in Poland Illustrated with an Example of Wielkopolskie Voivodeship
Next Article in Special Issue
A Sustainable Swedish School Intervention with Extra Aerobic Exercise—Its Organization and Effects on Physical Fitness and Academic Achievement
Previous Article in Journal
Soft Skills Integration into Business Processes Based on the Requirements of Employers—Approach for Sustainable Education
Previous Article in Special Issue
Schoolyard Affordances for Physical Activity: A Pilot Study in 6 Nordic–Baltic Countries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 24
10.3390/su132413808
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Barriers and Determinants of Active Commuting to School in Slovenia

by
Gregor Jurak
1,
Maroje Sorić
1,2,
Tjaša Ocvirk
1,
Žan Luca Potočnik
1,*,
Kaja Meh
1,
Saša Đurić
3,
Vedrana Sember
1 and
Gregor Starc
1
1
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3
General Education, Liberal Arts Department, American University of the Middle East, Egaila 54200, Kuwait
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(24), 13808; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413808
Submission received: 27 October 2021 / Revised: 6 December 2021 / Accepted: 9 December 2021 / Published: 14 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Active School Concept)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is a growing body of literature reporting the health benefits of active commuting to school. This study investigated barriers and determinants of active commuting in children in Slovenia living within walking or cycling distance to school, i.e., 3 km. The sample consisted of 339 children (163 girls) aged 11–14 years who reported their mode of commuting, as well as their parents who described the socioeconomic environment of the family. Every third child in this study traveled to school exclusively by car/public transport, while every fifth participant used a passive means of transport when returning home from school. Potential household poverty, education of the mother and parental encouragement for physical activity were not associated with the commuting mode. In addition, conformist family barriers dominated among reasons for not choosing active commuting. A distance to school that was perceived to be too long was the most frequently cited barrier (72% of participants who passively commuted in both directions), followed by concern about being late for school (38% of participants who passively commute in one direction). Parents from all social strata who drive their children to school in either one or both directions while living in a walking or cycling range are a promising target population for active commuting interventions.

1. Introduction

Physical inactivity has become a worldwide health problem, especially in children and youths [1,2,3]. Based on objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time, less than 10% of children and adolescents meet the recommended minimum of 60 min of daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) [4]. Slovenian children are among the most physically active, since 88% of 11-year-olds and 66% of 14-year-olds meet these recommendations [5]. The COVID-19 pandemic facilitated a trend of physical inactivity as several measures designed to limit the spread of the virus were introduced. Due to authorities’ strict advocacy of the “stayhome” policy and remote schooling, which have detained young people in their homes, the amount and intensity of their physical activity has lowered, and screen time has dramatically increased [6,7]. Since physical activity is favorably associated with numerous physical, psychological and cognitive health indicators [8,9,10], severe negative consequences are already visible [11].
Young people spend a major part of their time in schools. Therefore, schools will remain an important environment in the promotion of healthy movement behaviors, despite COVID-19 confinement measures in other settings. Compared to other settings (e.g., organized sports), school is also the only environment where all children from the same generation meet. Moreover, schools are very well connected with the local community with regards to physical activity infrastructure, i.e., playgrounds, safe paths, green areas, urban sports facilities and sport clubs. Accordingly, schools should advocate physical activity even more than before the pandemic. One of the actions that should be on the radar of school authorities is physically active commuting to school. Namely, in a world of very low physical activity in children, this kind of activity can contribute to children’s total daily physical activity [12,13,14,15,16,17] as well as their energy expenditure [15,18], both directly and indirectly. Specifically, besides physical activity related to walking or cycling to school or home, physically active commuters might engage in more spontaneous physical activities (e.g., running and jumping while playing outside) as well as becoming more familiar with physical activity infrastructure in their local environment and using it more frequently in their leisure time.
Consequently, several systematic reviews [16,19] reported positive associations between physically active commuting to school and cardiorespiratory fitness in youth, which is known to be an essential health marker in young people [20]. Interestingly, this association was significant for cycling, but not for walking to school. A very recent study of this problem [21] showed that when studying the effects of physically active commuting to school, the distance from home to school can have a moderating effect and should thus be considered. Children who actively commute typically live in close proximity to schools [22,23,24,25,26]. Similarly, children who walk to school do not live too far away, which could be the reason why improvements in physical fitness are not seen in those who have a physically active commute to school [15]. The close proximity to school means that the duration and the intensity of physical activity are low, even if the walk is daily. In contrast, living too far from the school is one of the most important barriers to a physically active commute to school. The largest acceptable distance for physically active commuting to school seems to be related to individual, family and environmental characteristics [22,27]. For example, a study from rural and urban areas of the UK showed that the threshold distance that best discriminated 14-year-old walkers from passive commuters was 3.1 km [28]. Another study in Belgium showed that this distance was 1.5 km in schoolchildren from urban areas [29], while findings from urban areas of the USA, Spain and Australia indicate that children who live farther than cca. 800 m from their school are less likely to make a physically active journey to school [24,30,31]. Another study from Australia reported that the likelihood of a physically active commute to school decreases with distance in a non-linear fashion [32]. It was found that 90% of trips will be active if the destination is 0.25 km away, 75% at 0.4 km, 50% at 0.9 km, 25% at 2.0 km and 10% at 3.2 km. Furthermore, Oliver et al. [33] reported that New Zealand children living farther than 2 km from school were significantly less likely to make active trips than those living less than 700 m away.
Besides distance, there are several other important barriers to physically active commuting to school. The systematic review of perceived barriers to children’s physically active commuting to school conducted by Lu et al. [34] found several groups of barriers. Personal barriers were parents’ lack of time, ease of dropping a child off on their way to work, a child’s heavy backpack and a child’s preference to be driven to school. The most common physical environmental barriers were traffic safety and distance to school, while social environmental barriers mostly addressed neighborhood safety. A recent systematic review [35] specifically addressed parental barriers and found that walkability was the most reported barrier (22 studies), followed by a high amount of traffic (14 studies), crime-related safety (15 studies) and distance (15 studies), which was the barrier with the strongest association with a physically active commute to school. Additionally, studies show that socioeconomic status is also an important predictor of a physically active commute to school. Several studies have recognized that children with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to make active trips to school [36,37], while some studies show that the opposite is true [32].
Based on described findings, we wanted to consider the distance to school when examining the determinants of a passive commute to school. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to gain an understanding of the choice to passively commute to school in Slovenia for children who live within walking or cycling distance to their school, especially since Slovenian schools generally have good conditions for physically active commuting to school (e.g., school walkability, very low prevalence of crime).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sample and Design

The participants included in this study were part of a decennial study on children’s biological, psychological and social development: The Analysis of Children’s Development in Slovenia (ACD.Si). The design and procedures of the ACD.Si were described in detail elsewhere [38]. The study was approved by the Commission of the Republic of Slovenia for Medical Ethics (No. 138/05/13). Parents or legal guardians provided informed consent for participation for both their underaged children and themselves.
We included children attending grades 6–9 (ages 11–14) from 11 randomly selected Slovenian primary schools. Data collection took place in September and October 2013. The initial sample size was 1437 (767 boys, 670 girls), but due to invalid or missing data, only 339 children were included in the analyses (176 boys and 163 girls; see Figure 1). Note that we only included adolescents living within 3 km from school, because it has been shown that the threshold distance that best discriminates walkers and passive commuters is 3 km for adolescents [28].

2.2. Measurments

2.2.1. School Commuting and Barriers for Active Commuting

The children completed the computerized SHAPES questionnaire on physical activity, supplemented with 2 questions regarding school commuting (Figure 2). The used questionnaire was piloted beforehand [38].
The children who chose a passive mode of commuting on the previous question (i.e., by car, by bus or by train) also answered the multiple-choice question regarding barriers to a physically active commute to school, with 8 given answers and one open answer (Figure 2).

2.2.2. Assessment of Distance from Home to School

The children’s home address and the school’s geographical coordinates were used to determine the actual (street) distance between them. We used the web application Here.com to calculate the distances, considering the mode of commuting. The only exception was commuting by public transport, where the actual distances were not known, and car distances were used.

2.2.3. Parental Encouragement for Children’s Physical Activity

Children assessed how their parents encourage them in physical activity by one of three given answers (Figure 2).

2.2.4. Socioeconomic Environment

Parents were asked to describe the specifics of their socioeconomic environment with several questions, of which two were included in our analyses (Figure 2). To gather their answers, we used the pen & paper method. At the end of the first day of data collection, children were handed a questionnaire for their parents with the instruction to return them on the following day (detailed study design is available elsewhere [38]).
The mother’s highest educational attainment was determined by one of six given answers, and potential risk of household poverty was investigated with the adapted question of the EU-SILC questionnaire [39], describing the difficulties with making ends meet (parents were instructed to pick the one of five answers that best describes their situation).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 25. Descriptive statistics were presented as frequencies and percentages, means and standard deviations, and medians and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. The difference between genders in terms of active commuting to and from school was determined using the chi-square test. In addition, the differences in terms of mother’s education, family economic status and parental encouragement in physical activity between the different commuting groups were determined using the Likelihood Ratio chi-square test. Here, the threshold for statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.003 due to the Bonferroni correction. Logistic regression was used to examine the associations between family economic status, the mother’s education, and parental encouragement in physical activity with the commuting mode choice. Note that the reference value for calculating the logistic regression was the lowest value in the above variables.

3. Results

Table 1 shows that 32% and 20% of our participants reported commuting passively to and from school, respectively. The chi-square test showed a difference between genders in terms of preferred mode of commuting to school (p = 0.005). Boys were more likely to choose wheels (i.e., bicycle, skateboard, roller skates, or kick scooter) as a commuting mode (p = 0.044), while girls more often walked (p = 0.25). In terms of commuting from school, boys and girls were equally likely to choose a physically active commute to school (p = 0.082). Differences among genders are presented in supplement in Tables S1 and S2. Logistic regression showed no significant effects of the mother’s education (p-values ranged 0.207–0.948), the economic status of the family (p-values 0.120–0.999) and parental encouragement of the child in physical activity (p-values 0.763–0.950) on commuting mode choice. In addition, the chi-square test showed no significant differences in terms of the mother’s education, the economic status of the family and parental encouragement of the child’s physical activity among the different commuting groups (Table 2). On the other hand, the distance to school was much greater in the passive commuting group in both boys and girls. Among passive commuters, the median distance (IQR) to school was 1956.5 (1853.3) and 2030.0 (1658.8) m for boys and girls, respectively, and among active commuters 818.0 (647) and 766.0 (763.5) m, respectively.
Most participants who lived within 3 km of their school and commuted passively to and from school marked “School is too far” as the main reason for their passive commuting (72% of them, Table 3). Interestingly, most of the participants from the mixed group who passively commuted in one direction chose “Do not want to be late” as their main reason (38% of them). There was a small gender difference among the reasons mentioned. Girls expressed more often that the reason for their passive commuting is that school coincides with their parents’ work schedule (p = 0.037) and that the school path is not traffic safe (p = 0.021). Differences among genders in reasons for passive commuting are presented in supplement in Table S3.
Associated with distance perception, of those who chose the reason “School is too far”, 80% commute passively in both directions and live on average 1860 ± 940 m from their school, while the remaining 20% commute passively in one direction and live 1640 ± 797 m from their school. Among those who live less than 1 km from their school, 57% state that reason for their passive commuting is that school is too far and 40% they do not want to be late. Note that the children who have a physically active commute to school live 926 ± 516 m from the school.

4. Discussion

This study investigated the barriers to physically active commuting to school for children in Slovenia who live within a walking or cycling distance of their school (i.e., 3 km). The main finding is that potential household poverty, the mother’s education and parental encouragement of children’s physical activity do not determine passive commuting to school. The second important finding is that conformist family barriers dominate among reasons for not choosing a physically active commute to school. Perceived long distance to school was the most frequently cited barrier, followed by worrying about being late for school.
Commuting to school is a complex phenomenon, since commuting patterns depend on social and physical environmental factors such as traffic safety and distance to school, school characteristics such as school policies on daily school commuting and school districts and personal and family factors such as both the parents’ and child’s perception of distance and safety [22,34]. In this study, around 2/3 of children reported physically active commuting to school in both directions, while almost 80% participants chose an active way to get back from school. A similar trend of different commuting modes to and from school for certain groups of children was also noticed in previous studies from Spain [40], the United States [41,42,43], Iran [44] and Canada [45]. This indicates that passive commuting in the morning might be linked to the convenience for the parents of dropping a child at school on the way to work, and not necessarily to reservations about active commuting [46,47] or other determinants such as gender, family social status or education of parents.
Interestingly, our study did not show many gender differences in active commuting to school. A recent study reported that girls are more likely to use motorized transport than boys [48], although we did not find such a difference. However, we found that boys were more likely to use wheeled modes of commuting (e.g., bicycle, skateboard) and girls were more likely to walk. Accordingly, the main finding of our study is that family potential household poverty, the mother’s education and parental support for children’s physical activity did not determine a physically active commute to school. The lack of association between the different indicators of socioeconomic status and physically active commuting to school is not surprising because, according to a systematic review by Aranda-Balboa et al. [35], the main parental barriers to their children’s physically active commuting to school are more related to the built environment, distance, traffic safety, crime-related safety and social support. On the other hand, these factors are likely to have some indirect influence on how children commute to school because, depending on the environment and parental education, some parents saw traffic volume as a greater threat than other barriers such as sidewalk maintenance [49]. Our findings imply that in high-income countries similar to Slovenia, interventions designed to promote active commuting should be delivered to parents from all social strata equally.
Reasons for not choosing physically active commuting to school reported in this study suggest that there is a meaningful proportion of children who use passive commuting to school for the wrong reasons. Specifically, 32.4% of students who lived within walking or cycling distance of their school commuted to school passively (by car, by public transport). The first three most frequently perceived barriers in this study (school is too far, fear of being late, school coincides with parents’ work schedule) mark conformist family behavior related to the beginning of school, which is in line with findings from earlier studies [46,47]. Specifically, for the children included in this study, school starts between 7.30 and 8.20 a.m., which closely corresponds to parents’ departure for work and results in parents driving their children to school on their way to work. Hence, a later school start could be accompanied by an increase in physically active commuting to school. Notably, it has been shown that a later school start is also related to longer sleep duration [50,51], improved academic performance [51] and decreased risk of motor vehicle crashes [50]. To this end, results from this and previous studies offer a powerful incentive for school administrations and national educational authorities to start school later in order to gain all these benefits.
The next important group of barriers identified in this study was related to perceived conditions for physically active commuting to school (none of my friends are going to school by themselves, I do not want to walk or cycle to school, school path is not traffic safe). These barriers fall into the category of social support and are in line with some previous studies. For example, in the study by Salmon et al. [52], 48.5% of 717 parents reported that there were no other children with whom their child could walk to school. In addition, 48.3% of them reported that their children preferred to be driven to school by car, and 69.2% of parents were concerned that their children might be injured in a road accident walking to school. Therefore, initiatives focused on addressing these problems are called for. In cooperation with parents, schools should implement active commuting interventions, known in many countries as the walking bus and bicycle train forms of transport for schoolchildren, who, chaperoned by adults, walk or cycle to school along a set route, in much the same way a school bus would drive them to school. Besides increasing physical activity levels, these kinds of interventions can contribute towards an improvement of physical fitness in certain groups of children. Namely, our previous study showed that boys who walked or used wheels for commuting (e.g., bicycle, skateboard) to school had about 4 ml/min/kg higher predicted cardiorespiratory fitness compared to their peers who were driven to school [21]. Maximum benefits of active commuting for physical fitness are likely to be gained by children who live a little farther from their school, especially if they cycle to school. A recent study from Denmark reported that children who cycled to school had higher aerobic power (by 4.6–5.9%), isometric muscle endurance (by 10–16%), dynamic muscle endurance in the abdominal muscles (by 10%) and flexibility (by 6%) than either children who walked to school or passive commuters [53]. Moreover, a longitudinal study of Danish children [54] showed that switching from passive commuting to cycling to school was associated with 9% higher cardiorespiratory fitness at follow-up. Taken together, this suggests that initiatives that promote physically active commuting to school should prioritize cycling whenever the traffic infrastructure allows.
Additionally, together with the local community, schools should provide infrastructural support, such as safe routes to schools with playgrounds as stopovers, slower traffic in the school district, and storage for bicycles or other wheeled equipment at schools. In addition to the promotion of such commuting infrastructure, this could also affect perceptions regarding the distance to school, which is perceived as a barrier to a physically active commute to school.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

The strengths of this study include an accurate and consistent measurement protocol, consideration of commuting distance between school and home when examining determinants and barriers for passive commuting and information on different commuting modes to school and home. However, there are several limitations worth highlighting as well. First, we used a subjective method (questionnaire) with specific types of questions to obtain information about the mode of commuting (7-day recall), which is frequently subject to bias and may not reflect the participants’ typical commuting modes. Second, the commuting modes during the period of this study may have also been influenced by other factors (e.g., weather conditions) not observed in our study. To that end, it is worth noting that data for this study were collected in late summer and early autumn, when the weather in Slovenia is usually mild. Thus, whether the conclusions of this study would also be valid for winter remains to be determined. Third, we assessed family socioeconomic environment in our survey based on subjective perception of potential household deprivation, which we did not validate with a direct question on income. We did not use a direct question on monthly household income based on our previous experience in order to avoid the risk of increased drop-out due to the sensitivity of the information. Using a different direct or proxy indicator of socioeconomic status could result in different outcomes.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that passive commuting to school in children living in a 3 km radius is not determined by family economic status, the mother’s education or parental encouragement of children’s physical activity. Additionally, it showed that barriers to a physically active commute to school are frequently associated with convenience, which are in turn linked with habitual daily family dynamics. This provides a good opportunity for active commuting interventions initiated by schools and implemented jointly with families and local communities, where the parents who live in a walking or cycling range and drive their children to school should be prioritised. In addition, local communities should promote physically active commuting to school among students and should implement evidence-based programs, such as walking bus and bicycle train. Competent authorities should also consider a later start of school in the morning to allow more time for transport. Such approaches can guarantee the sustainability of the practice of a physically active commute to school as an important contributor to a healthy lifestyle, while at the same time reducing CO2 emissions. Namely, children who actively commute receive more opportunities to master their built environment (e.g., crossing roads) and learn to be physically active in different weather conditions (e.g., walking in the rain). Moreover, these children also get more opportunities to develop their motor skills because the route from home to school is not necessarily direct, and children tend to engage in spontaneous activities along the way, such as climbing rocks or throwing snowballs. Therefore, children who actively commute gain more motor skills in their free time than their non-actively commuting peers. Finally, it should be noted that active commuting policies in school settings can easily reach children from all socioeconomic strata, and as such should be high on the policymaker’s agenda. Still, in order to direct future policies on active transport, further research on children’s and parents’ perception of the adequate distance for a physically active commute to school is needed, as well as research on parents’ reasons for choosing passive commuting.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su132413808/s1, Table S1: Frequency of different modes of commuting to school and from school back home for boys, Table S2: Frequency of different modes of commuting to school and from school back home for girls, Table S3: Proportion of children who live within 3 km distance to school and use passive or mixed commuting to school across different reasons for not actively commuting to school, separated by gender.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.J. and M.S.; methodology, G.J., M.S. and V.S.; formal analysis, T.O. and S.Đ.; investigation, V.S., K.M., Ž.L.P.; resources, K.M.; data curation, G.J., S.Đ. and T.O.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Đ. and T.O.; writing—review and editing, M.S., G.J. and G.S.; visualization, S.Đ., T.O., K.M. and Ž.L.P.; supervision, G.J.; project administration, G.J. and G.S.; funding acquisition, G.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Limited non-specific funding was provided by the Slovenian National Research Agency (P5-0142 Bio-psycho-social context of kinesiology). The study received also valuable assistance from the Slovenian Olympic Committee and Elan Inventa, a sporting equipment manufacturer and supplier.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Commission of the Republic of Slovenia for Medical Ethics (No. 138/05/13).

Informed Consent Statement

Parents or legal guardians provided informed consent for participation for both their underaged children, and themselves.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in Mendeley Data at https://doi.org/10.17632/n2rrc25d3b.1.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Pratt, M.; Ramirez Varela, A.; Salvo, D.; Kohl, H.W.; Ding, D. Attacking the Pandemic of Physical Inactivity: What is Holding Us Back? Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 760–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kohl, H.W.; Craig, C.L.; Lambert, E.V.; Inoue, S.; Alkandari, J.R.; Leetongin, G.; Kahlmeier, S. The Pandemic of Physical Inactivity: Global Action for Public Health. Lancet 2012, 380, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Hall, G.; Laddu, D.R.; Phillips, S.A.; Lavie, C.J.; Arena, R. A Tale of Two Pandemics: How Will COVID-19 and Global Trends in Physical Inactivity and Sedentary Behavior Affect One Another? Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2021, 64, 108–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cooper, A.R.; Goodman, A.; Page, A.S.; Sherar, L.B.; Esliger, D.W.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.F.; Andersen, L.B.; Anderssen, S.; Cardon, G.; Davey, R.; et al. Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Time in Youth: The International Children’s Accelerometry Database (ICAD). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Sember, V.; Morisson, S.; Jurak, G.; Kovač, M.; Golobič, M.; Pavletić Samardžija, P.; Gabrijelčič, M.; Primožič, M.; Djomba, K.J.; Kotar, T.; et al. The Republic of Slovenia Report Card on Physical Activity of Children and Youth; 2018; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343381372_The_Republic_of_Slovenia_Report_card_on_Physical_Activity_for_Children_and_Youth (accessed on 10 September 2021).
  6. Moore, S.A.; Faulkner, G.; Rhodes, R.E.; Brussoni, M.; Chulak-Bozzer, T.; Ferguson, L.J.; Mitra, R.; O’Reilly, N.; Spence, J.C.; Vanderloo, L.M.; et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Virus Outbreak on Movement and Play Behaviours of Canadian Children and Youth: A National Survey. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Paterson, D.C.; Ramage, K.; Moore, S.A.; Riazi, N.; Tremblay, M.S.; Faulkner, G. Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on the Movement Behaviors of Children and Youth: A Scoping Review of Evidence after the First Year. J. Sport Health Sci. 2021, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ruiz, J.R.; Castro-Pinero, J.; Artero, E.G.; Ortega, F.B.; Sjostrom, M.; Suni, J.; Castillo, M.J. Predictive Validity of Health-Related Fitness in Youth: A Systematic Review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2009, 43, 909–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Janssen, I.; LeBlanc, A.G. Systematic Review of the Health Benefits of Physical Activity and Fitness in School-Aged Children and Youth. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2010, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.E.; Borghese, M.M.; Carson, V.; Chaput, J.-P.; Janssen, I.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Pate, R.R.; Connor Gorber, S.; Kho, M.E.; et al. Systematic Review of the Relationships between Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Health Indicators in School-Aged Children and Youth. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41, S197–S239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Jurak, G.; Morrison, S.A.; Kovač, M.; Leskošek, B.; Sember, V.; Strel, J.; Starc, G. A COVID-19 Crisis in Child Physical Fitness: Creating a Barometric Tool of Public Health Engagement for the Republic of Slovenia. Front. Public Health 2021, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aparicio-Ugarriza, R.; Mielgo-Ayuso, J.; Ruiz, E.; Ávila, J.M.; Aranceta-Bartrina, J.; Gil, Á.; Ortega, R.M.; Serra-Majem, L.; Varela-Moreiras, G.; González-Gross, M. Active Commuting, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behaviors in Children and Adolescents from Spain: Findings from the ANIBES Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Carver, A.; Timperio, A.F.; Hesketh, K.D.; Ridgers, N.D.; Salmon, J.L.; Crawford, D.A. How is Active Transport Associated with Children’s and Adolescents’ Physical Activity over Time? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Chillón, P.; Ortega, F.B.; Ruiz, J.R.; Veidebaum, T.; Oja, L.; Mäestu, J.; Sjöström, M. Active Commuting to School in Children and Adolescents: An Opportunity to Increase Physical Activity and Fitness. Scand. J. Public Health 2010, 38, 873–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Faulkner, G.E.J.; Buliung, R.N.; Flora, P.K.; Fusco, C. Active School Transport, Physical Activity Levels and Body Weight of Children and Youth: A Systematic Review. Prev. Med. 2009, 48, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Larouche, R.; Saunders, T.J.; John Faulkner, G.E.; Colley, R.; Tremblay, M. Associations between Active School Transport and Physical Activity, Body Composition, and Cardiovascular Fitness: A Systematic Review of 68 Studies. J. Phys. Act. Health 2014, 11, 206–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ching Kek, C.; Garc ıa Bengoechea, E.; Spence, J.C.; Mandic, S. The Relationship between Transport-to-School Habits and Physical Activity in a Sample of New Zealand Adolescents. J. Sport Health Sci. 2019, 8, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Slingerland, M.; Borghouts, L.B.; Hesselink, M.K.C. Physical Activity Energy Expenditure in Dutch Adolescents: Contribution of Active Transport to School, Physical Education, and Leisure Time Activities. J. Sch. Health 2012, 82, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Lubans, D.R.; Boreham, C.A.; Kelly, P.; Foster, C.E. The Relationship between Active Travel to School and Health-Related Fitness in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Ortega, F.B.; Ruiz, J.R.; Castillo, M.J.; Sjöström, M. Physical Fitness in Childhood and Adolescence: A Powerful Marker of Health. Int. J. Obes. 2008, 32, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Jurak, G.; Soric, M.; Sember, V.; Djuric, S.; Starc, G.; Kovac, M.; Leskosek, B. Associations of Mode and Distance of Commuting to School with Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Slovenian Schoolchildren: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Davison, K.K.; Werder, J.L.; Lawson, C.T. Children’s Active Commuting to School: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2008, 5, A100. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2008/jul/07_0075.htm (accessed on 10 September 2021). [PubMed]
  23. McDonald, N.C. Children’s Mode Choice for the School Trip: The Role of Distance and School Location in Walking to School. Transportation 2007, 35, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Timperio, A.; Ball, K.; Salmon, J.; Roberts, R.; Giles-Corti, B.; Simmons, D.; Baur, L.A.; Crawford, D. Personal, Family, Social, and Environmental Correlates of Active Commuting to School. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006, 30, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Metcalf, B.; Voss, L.; Jeffery, A.; Perkins, J.; Wilkin, T. Physical Activity Cost of the School Run: Impact on Schoolchildren of Being Driven to School (EarlyBird 22). BMJ 2004, 329, 832–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Cooper, A.R.; Page, A.S.; Foster, L.J.; Qahwaji, D. Commuting to School: Are Children Who Walk More Physically Active? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2003, 25, 273–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ikeda, E.; Hinckson, E.; Witten, K.; Smith, M. Assessment of Direct and Indirect Associations between Children Active School Travel and Environmental, Household and Child Factors Using Structural Equation Modelling. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Chillón, P.; Panter, J.; Corder, K.; Jones, A.P.; Van Sluijs, E.M.F. A Longitudinal Study of the Distance That Young People Walk to School. Health Place 2015, 31, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. D’Haese, S.; De Meester, F.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Deforche, B.; Cardon, G. Criterion Distances and Environmental Correlates of Active Commuting to School in Children. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Rodríguez-López, C.; Salas-Fariña, Z.M.; Villa-González, E.; Borges-Cosic, M.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Medina-Casaubón, J.; Ortega, F.B.; Chillón, P. The Threshold Distance Associated with Walking from Home to School. Health Educ. Behav. 2017, 44, 857–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. McMillan, T.E. The Relative Influence of Urban Form on a Child’s Travel Mode to School. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2007, 41, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marten, N.; Olds, T. Physical Activity: Patterns of Active Transport in 11-12 Year Old Australian Children. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2004, 28, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Oliver, M.; Badland, H.; Mavoa, S.; Witten, K.; Kearns, R.; Ellaway, A.; Hinckson, E.; Mackay, L.; Schluter, P.J. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Lu, W.; McKyer, E.L.; Lee, C.; Goodson, P.; Ory, M.G.; 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, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Aranda-Balboa, M.J.; Huertas-Delgado, F.J.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Cardon, G.; Chillón, P. Parental Barriers to Active Transport to School: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Public Health 2020, 65, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Mota, J.; Gomes, H.; Almeida, M.; Ribeiro, J.C.; Carvalho, J.; Santos, M.P. 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, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. 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, 849–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jurak, G.; Kovač, M.; Starc, G. The ACDSi 2013–The Analysis of Children’s Development in Slovenia 2013: Study Protocol. Anthropol. Noteb. 2013, 19, 123–143. Available online: http://www.drustvo-antropologov.si/AN/PDF/2013_3/Anthropological_Notebooks_XIX_3_Jurak.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2021).
  39. Guio, A.-C.; Gordon, D.; Marlier, E.; Najera, H.; Pomati, M. Towards an EU Measure of Child Deprivation. Child Indic. Res. 2018, 11, 835–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Escabias, M.; Ortega, F.; McDonald, N.; Chillón, P. Mode of Commuting TO and FROM School: A Similar or Different Pattern? Sustainability 2019, 11, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Seraj, S.; Sidharthan, R.; Bhat, C.R.; Pendyala, R.M.; Goulias, K.G. Parental Attitudes toward Children Walking and Bicycling to School: Multivariate Ordered Response Analysis. Transp. Res. Rec. 2012, 2323, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhu, X.; Lee, C. Correlates of Walking to School and Implications for Public Policies: Survey Results from Parents of Elementary School Children in Austin, Texas. J. Public Health Policy 2009, 30, S177–S202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. McDonald, N.C.; Steiner, R.L.; Lee, C.; Rhoulac Smith, T.; Zhu, X.; Yang, Y. Impact of the Safe Routes to School Program on Walking and Bicycling. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2014, 80, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Samimi, A.; Ermagun, A. Students’ Tendency to Walk to School: Case Study of Tehran. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2013, 139, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Larsen, K.; Gilliland, J.; Hess, P.M. Route-Based Analysis to Capture the Environmental Influences on a Child’s Mode of Travel between Home and School. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2012, 102, 1348–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Panter, J.; Corder, K.; Griffin, S.J.; Jones, A.P.; van Sluijs, E.M. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. McDonald, N.C.; Aalborg, A.E. Why Parents Drive Children to School: Implications for Safe Routes to School Programs. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2009, 75, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Castro-Lemus, N.; Romero-Blanco, C.; García-Coll, V.; Aznar, S. Gender-Differentiated Analysis of the Correlation between Active Commuting to School vs. Active Commuting to Extracurricular Physical Activity Practice during Adolescence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Oluyomi, A.O.; Lee, C.; Nehme, E.; Dowdy, D.; Ory, M.G.; Hoelscher, D.M. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Danner, F.; Phillips, B. Adolescent Sleep, School Start Times, and Teen Motor Vehicle Crashes. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2008, 4, 533–535. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19110880 (accessed on 10 September 2021). [CrossRef]
  51. Dunster, G.P.; de la Iglesia, L.; Ben-Hamo, M.; Nave, C.; Fleischer, J.G.; Panda, S.; de la Iglesia, H.O. Sleepmore in Seattle: Later School Start Times Are Associated with More Sleep and Better Performance in High School Students. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaau6200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Salmon, J.; Salmon, L.; Crawford, D.A.; Hume, C.; Timperio, A. Associations among Individual, Social, and Environmental Barriers and Children’s Walking or Cycling to School. Am. J. Health Promot. 2007, 22, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Andersen, L.B.; Lawlor, D.A.; Cooper, A.R.; Froberg, K.; Anderssen, S.A. Physical Fitness in Relation to Transport to School in Adolescents: The Danish Youth and Sports Study. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2009, 19, 406–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Cooper, A.R.; Wedderkopp, N.; Jago, R.; Kristensen, P.L.; Moller, N.C.; Froberg, K.; Page, A.S.; Andersen, L.B. Longitudinal Associations of Cycling to School with Adolescent Fitness. Prev. Med. 2008, 47, 324–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 13 13808 g001 550
Figure 1. Participant flow diagram.
Figure 1. Participant flow diagram.
Sustainability 13 13808 g001
Sustainability 13 13808 g002 550
Figure 2. Questions relating to school commuting, barriers to active commuting, parental encouragement for children’s physical activity and socioeconomic environment.
Figure 2. Questions relating to school commuting, barriers to active commuting, parental encouragement for children’s physical activity and socioeconomic environment.
Sustainability 13 13808 g002
Table
Table 1. Frequency of different modes of commuting to school and from school back home.
Table 1. Frequency of different modes of commuting to school and from school back home.
Commuting from School
CarBus, trainWalkBicycleSkateboard, Roller Skates, Kick ScooterTotal
Commuting to SchoolCar20 (5.9%)7 (2.1%)31 (9.1%)0058 (17.1%)
Bus, train039 (11.5%)13 (3.8%)0052 (15.3%)
Walk2 (0.6%)1 (0.3%)210 (61.9%)00213 (62.8%)
Bicycle003 (0.9%)11 (3.2%)014 (4.1%)
Skateboard, Roller Skates, Kick Scooter00002 (0.6%)2 (0.6%)
Total22 (6.5%)47 (13.9%)257 (75.8%)11 (3.2%)2 (0.6%)339 (100%)
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics on children’s encouragement by parents, mother’s education, and economic status stratified by commuting mode.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics on children’s encouragement by parents, mother’s education, and economic status stratified by commuting mode.
Type of Commuting to/from School
Boys Girls
Passive in both
directions		Passive in one
direction		Active in both
directions		Χ2 p-value Passive in both
directions		Passive in one
direction		Active in both
directions		Χ2 p-value
n = 36n = 27n = 113 n = 30n = 20n = 113
AgeMean (SD)13.5
(± 0.8)		13.7
(± 0.8)		13.4
(± 0.9)		 13.4
(± 1.0)		13.4
(± 0.7)		13.4
(± 0.9)
Mother’s educationMedian (IQR)3
(2)		4
(2)		3
(3)		0.531 3
(2)		3.5
(2)		3
(3)		0.317
Economic
status		Median (IQR)3
(1)		2
(1)		2
(1.5)		0.017 2
(1)		2
(1)		2
(1)		0.679
Parental
encouragement		Median (IQR)2
(1)		2
(1)		2
(1)		0.093 2
(1)		2
(1)		20.942
Distance (m)Median (IQR)1956.5 (1853.3)1552.0 (1097.5)818.0
(647)		0.000 2030.0 (1658.8)1066.0 (886.0)766.0 (763.5)0.000
SD–standard deviation; IQR–interquartile range; n–numerus; Χ2–chi-square.
Table
Table 3. Proportion of children who live within 3 km distance of their school and use passive or mixed commuting to school across different reasons for not actively commuting to school.
Table 3. Proportion of children who live within 3 km distance of their school and use passive or mixed commuting to school across different reasons for not actively commuting to school.
Reasons for not Actively Commuting to SchoolCommuting to/from School
Passive in both directionsPassive in one directionTotal
n = 66n = 47n = 113
School is too far from home.48 (72.2%)12 (25.5%)60 (53.1%)
I do not want to be late for school.19 (28.9%)18 (38.3%)37 (32.7%)
The school coincides with parents’ work schedule.9 (13.6%)9 (19.1%)18 (15.9%)
Because of my after-curriculum activities.10 (15.2%)5 (10.6%)15 (13.3%)
I do not want to walk or cycle to school.7 (10.6)4 (8.5%)11 (9.7%)
The school path is not traffic safe.7 (10.6%)1 (2.1%)8 (7.1%)
None of my friends are going to school by themselves.4 (6.1%)4 (8.5%)8 (7.1%)
School path is not safe, due to high crime rates.1 (1.5%)01 (0.9%)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jurak, G.; Sorić, M.; Ocvirk, T.; Potočnik, Ž.L.; Meh, K.; Đurić, S.; Sember, V.; Starc, G. Barriers and Determinants of Active Commuting to School in Slovenia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413808

AMA Style

Jurak G, Sorić M, Ocvirk T, Potočnik ŽL, Meh K, Đurić S, Sember V, Starc G. Barriers and Determinants of Active Commuting to School in Slovenia. Sustainability. 2021; 13(24):13808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413808

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jurak, Gregor, Maroje Sorić, Tjaša Ocvirk, Žan Luca Potočnik, Kaja Meh, Saša Đurić, Vedrana Sember, and Gregor Starc. 2021. "Barriers and Determinants of Active Commuting to School in Slovenia" Sustainability 13, no. 24: 13808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413808

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop