active commuting and school choice policy

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*


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


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


b/p


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

active commuting and school choice policy

Data & Analytics