making connections and scheduling on the route to school: the smartphone enabled walking school bus
TRANSCRIPT
Making Connections and Scheduling on the Route to School: The Smartphone Enabled
Walking School Bus
Sarah Norgate, Nichola Street (University of Salford) Christopher Winstanley , Mike Harding & Nigel Davies
(Lancaster University)
1
Current and future challenges in school travel
• Implications of the European Environment AgencyReport (2013).
• Peak proportion of cars on the roads taking children toschool in urban areas is 25% of all traffic (DfT, 2010).
• Currently 42% pupils age 5-10 years driven to schoolcompared with 37% in 2000 (DfT, 2010).
• Last 30 years, average size UK primary school ~ 200pupils. By 2020 population of pupils in state fundedprimary schools is projected to rise by 18% (DfE,2012). 2
3
Time for a fresh look at Walking School Buses (WSB)?
Timeline of WSB innovation:
1990: David Engwicht innovates WSBs.
1992: Hertfordshire (Wheatfields Primary) launch.
2013: Smart mobility device “Where is my walking school bus?” App trialled in Greater Manchester.
The future: Expansion to ‘Smart Cities’? 4
Is there a case for an increased role for WSBs?
• Obesity rate increase from 17% to 19% (2007 - 11).• Data on health benefits of Walking School Buses (WSB),particularly relevant to longer term habit formation. • Status of children’s independent mobility in Europe(PSI, 2013) shows some variation. • Number of 7-10 year olds ‘usually accompanied’ by anadult to school rose from 72% in 2002 to 80% (DfT, 2011).
5
Reasons cited by parents for accompanying child to school (DfT, 2011)
6
Fear of assault or molestation
Convenient to accompany
child
Child might get lost
Traffic danger Child might not arrive in time
Conceptions of ‘time’: A case for developing WSBs ?
• ‘Time’ as a barrier to children’s independent mobility.
• International evidence (review of 12 studies based on9173 children and >300 schools) identified ‘time’ as bothbarrier and facilitator to effective functioning of WSBs(Smith et al. in press).
• By 2015, 80% internet users will access internet bymobile device, so could smart mobility make WSB moreconvenient to users?
7
Animation of the concept
8
Award-winning impact pathway informed by multiple stakeholders
Na#onal and regional policy influencing -‐
Modeshi6
Transport for Greater Manchester
District authori#es *
Primary schools & Headteacher
WSB Coordinators
Family
9
• ModeshiftUK Award for partnershipengagement, ‘Where is my Walking School Bus’ App.
• Contribution towards Leading ParentPartnership Award
• Partnerships with district authoritiesincluding Trafford, Manchester City, Urban Vision, Oldham, Wigan, Stockport, Bolton Tameside Council’s.
Do users show any intention of adoption of the “Where’s my Walking School Bus?” App?
• 29 users (13 WSBCs; 6 HTs; 10 parents) from 15 schools.• 8 ‘below average’ deprivation on UK Network Public Health
Observatories.• Individual semi-structured interviews via ‘storyboards’ and
‘screenshots’ of smartphones.• 21/29 accepted it; 8 ‘ambiguous’ & no rejects.• 33 ‘pros’ identified with 17 related to timing:
- confidence in timing of ‘set off’ /progression (9/17)- fluidity under scheduling constraints or time pressure (5/17).
10
Research phase one
Distribution of ‘Pros’ on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al.,
2003)
BenMessaoud C, Kharrazi H, MacDorman KF (2011) Facilitators and Barriers to Adopting Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Contextualizing the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16395. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016395 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016395
10/33
22/33
0/33
1/33
Convenience Lateness
Knowing on way Built environment
Adverse weather
10/33 ‘pros’ related to specific conditions where visibility helps.
Distribution of ‘Cons’ on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et
al., 2003)
BenMessaoud C, Kharrazi H, MacDorman KF (2011) Facilitators and Barriers to Adopting Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Contextualizing the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16395. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016395 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016395
11/22
1/22
8/22
2/22
Digital access for
users Planning &
numbers Safety of
WSB
Cognitive constraints for WSBC
Trust in WSBC
‘Cons’ – are they insurmountable?
Is there any evidence of the impact of ‘early phase’ of adoption of ‘WSB’ smart mobility on user cognitions?
• Do users in a ‘smart mobility’condition perceive waiting timeduration shorter or longer than‘control’ group users?
• How do users in the smartmobility condition talk abouttheir waiting experience?
• Do users with different mental‘time perspectives’ (Webster,2011) perceive waiting timedifferently?
15
Research phase two
Time Expansive
Futurists
Reminiscers Time Restrictive
High
High Low
Low
Past
Futu
re
Figure 1. Four-category conceptual mode;, BTPS category labels are in bold. Taken from Webster 2011.
Methods
• Trialled in Manchester, U.K. with six schools acrossthe demographic range.
• Focus on cognitive experience in the early phase ofadoption (one day, five days, five weeks).
• Compared perceived waiting time across a ‘smartmobility’ experimental condition with a ‘control’condition.
• Semi-structured interviews with adopters in the‘smart mobility’ condition.
16
17
Sample characteris#cs
Experimental (N=26)
Control (N=21)
Sta7s7cal Outcomes
Number who are female parents 24 19 -‐
Previous mobile phone experience i.e. owner
100% 100%
Mean no. of months of previous WSB use (standard devia7on)
13.39 (15.50) 14.12 (19.04) No significant difference (p=0.87)
Mean dura7on in minutes of perceived wai7ng 7me of
tradi7onal WSB.
4.23 (3.17) 3.67 (2.08) No significant difference (p=0.48)
Distribu7on in par7cipa7on across trials
1 day 26 21
Mul7ple Day Distribu7ons across trials (based on mean 3-‐5 days)
Mul7ple Days 12 8
Distribution of Time Perspective across groups as measured by The Balanced Time Perspective
Scale (Webster, 2011)
18
Time perspec#ve Experimental (N=26) Control (N=21)
Time Expansive 14 12
Reminiscers 5 5
Time Restric7ve 5 3
Futurist 2 1
Total 26 21
Results
• One day trial: Significant 3 way interaction betweencondition (Smart Mobility vs Control), time point (pre-trial vs trial) and Balanced Time Perspective category.F(3,32)=2.82, p=0.054.
• Multiple days trials: Significant 3 way interactionbetween condition (Smart Mobility vs Control), timepoint(pre-trial vs trial) and Balanced Time Perspectivecategory. F(3,32)=4.15, p=0.001.
19
Thematic analysis from the experimental group (n=21)
Theme n Representative comment PROs ‘Time’ 6 “Being able to track the WSB meant we were able to leave the house just
before it reached us, cutting down the waiting time.”
Child use 4 “The children enjoyed following the bus (on App) learning about where the signal came from.”
Visibility of WSB
2 “Felt App useful as I was able to see where WSB was. Also I was able to see when they arrived at school.”
Generic 2 “The Application was great.”
CONs Usability On day
2 “Bus app did not work so we left early to make sure we did not miss it”
‘Time’ 1 “The bus arrived later at 8.17hrs when its latest time is 8.17hrs, I was anxious
OTHER 2 “I don’t really wait when my children are ready as they just knock the door ..”
No commentleft
2
TOTAL 21 21
Representative quotes from 5 Week Post-Trial Interviews
22
Theme Example quotation
Positive Time “The most enjoyable, for me it’s that you do things just in time. To like
what I hate is going out and waiting for another two minutes or three minutes, like previously. That’s why I’m dreading what are we going to do without the App.”
Relaxed/Less Stressful
“With the App it’s more relaxed to get on with what you need to do”
Confidence in App
“..as the days and the weeks went on, you could like I said, have more confidence in it and yes, definitely is going to be on time..”
Negative Features that were not used
“I never took any notice of the predicted arrival times at all. That’s probably more you can rely on that more than predicted- because it’s predicted isn’t it. You can see exactly where they are.”
Initially difficult to incorporate into morning routine.
“I think maybe the first couple of days, obviously getting used to it and getting into it and things it was a bit, I wouldn’t say stressful or frustrating. It was just because it was something new to get used to”
Conclusions and Next Steps
• Impact of ‘early phase’ adoption of smart mobilitydemonstrated impact on user waiting experience – includingcognitions - which strengthened over the trial.
• Implications for design of future smart mobility initiativesincluding digital inclusion.
• Next steps: Expansion to Android and Self-service user websiteunder development.
• Interest from school leadership teams in USA, Canada,Norway and Germany.
23
