Active transportation environments surrounding Canadian schools.
O'Loghlen, Sean ; Pickett, William ; Janssen, Ian 等
Active transportation refers to using walking, bicycling or other
human-powered modes of transportation for practical purposes such as
commuting. (1) For children and youth, travelling to school represents
an opportunity to engage in active transportation and to increase their
overall physical activity. However, as recently reviewed, data from
several countries indicate that the proportion of children who walk or
bicycle to school has decreased in recent decades. (2) Cross-national
comparisons also indicate that Canadian children are less likely to
actively commute to school by comparison to other countries. For
instance, while more than half of children from Australia, Scotland,
England, Russia, and Sweden usually walk or bicycle to school, (2)
regional data from Ontario and Prince Edward Island suggest that only
one third of Canadian children do so. (3) These are troubling statistics
given the medical, economic and environmental benefits associated with
active transportation. (4-9) From a public health perspective, increased
active transportation could help address the prevalence of obesity and
related chronic illnesses. (5,6,9-12)
The decision to engage in active transportation is complex and
represents the joining of many factors, including the built environment.
(4,5) The built environment refers to our human-made surroundings.
Several built environment features are correlated with active
transportation, including the speed and connectivity of roads.
(5,10,11,13-18) Roads with high speed limits and roads that are poorly
connected can make it unsafe and inefficient (i.e., long travel
distances) for people to engage in active transportation.
(5,10,11,13-18)
Safety concerns around neighbourhood crime and violence can also
negatively impact active transportation. (5,6,13,19) Conversely,
aesthetically pleasing environments may inspire people to engage in
active transportation. (13,20) Finally, policies and programs
encouraging the use of built environment features can impact active
transportation. (6,9,18,21)
There is a dearth of Canadian and international research that
characterizes active transportation environments relevant specifically
to children. (3,8) Characterization of these environments may inform the
development of policies aimed at promoting physical activity. The
primary purpose of our study was to describe the extent to which
environments surrounding schools in Canada are conducive to active
transportation. A secondary purpose was to examine variations in these
environments by urban-rural geography and type of school (primary vs.
secondary schools). The study was based upon administrator responses to
the 2009/2010 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey and
geographic measures of the neighbourhoods surrounding these schools.
METHOD
Schools in study sample
Our sample included primary and secondary schools that participated
in the 2009/2010 Canadian HBSC. The HBSC involves a general health
survey completed by students (with active or passive consent, as per
jurisdictional requirements), and an administrator questionnaire
completed by the principal or designate of each school. The present
study relied on the administrator questionnaire, which was primarily
completed between November 2009 and May 2010, and geographic measures of
the built environment in the neighbourhood surrounding each school. The
sample of schools is representative by school board type (public or
separate), language of instruction, urban/rural geography, and regional
geography. All provinces and territories were represented except for
Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
HBSC administrator's survey
The HBSC administrator's survey contained questions related to
the school's size, demographics, facilities, policies, and
neighbourhood environment. The inclusion of active transportation
questions in the survey was guided by prior research examining the
correlates of active transportation, as overviewed in the introduction
to this article.
The school's policies, facilities and/or programs aimed at
promoting active transportation were assessed using 8 questions, all
with "yes" or "no" responses. The first 2 of these
questions started by asking "Do the majority of students at your
school have regular access to bicycle racks during school hours?"
If a response of "yes" was provided, a follow-up question was
asked: "Are the racks in a secure area to avoid theft?" The
remaining 6 questions started by asking "Does your school promote
active transportation to and from school in any of the following
ways?" The 6 areas addressed under this question were:
"Identify safe routes to use for walking and cycling to and from
school (e.g., with signs, in newsletters, etc.)", "Designate a
'car free zone' to provide safe walking areas around the
school", "Allow students to bring bicycles on school
property", "Allow students to bring small-wheeled vehicles
(e.g., inline skates, scooters, skateboards) on school property",
"Encourage the use of helmets and safety gear for those who use
bicycles and small wheel vehicles to get to school", and
"Organize occasional 'walk to school' days, walking
clubs, or walking school buses".
Five questions assessed the safety and aesthetics of the
school's neighbourhood, as perceived the by school administrator
who completed the questionnaire. These questions started by asking
"How much of a problem are the following in the neighbourhood where
this school is located?" The 5 areas addressed under this question
were: "Garbage, litter, or broken glass in the street or road, on
the sidewalks, or in yards", "Vacant or shabby houses and
buildings", "Selling or using drugs or excessive drinking in
public", "Crime in the neighbourhood", and "Heavy
traffic". The responses were "major problem",
"moderate problem", "minor problem", and "not a
problem". Responses to the first 3 options were merged to create a
single dichotomous variable (yes or no) with regard to whether there was
a problem.
Principal components factor analyses were used to develop composite
scales based on the policy/program questions and the safety/aesthetics
questions. Scale construction was guided by factor loadings,
eigenvalues, and the scree plot. One program/policy and one
safety/aesthetics factor were identified.
Geographic information systems measures
Features of the built environment were measured in a 1 km-radius
circular buffer surrounding each school using ArcGIS version 9.3
geographic information systems (GIS) software and the CanMap
RouteLogistics version 2009.4 (DMTI Spatial Inc., Markham, ON) GIS
database. Roads within the 1 km buffer were described by speed limit
([less than or equal to]60 km/h vs. [greater than or equal to]61 km/h).
We considered the speed limit of the road on which the school was
located. We also considered the ratio of the length of roads with speed
limits [less than or equal to]60 km/h to the total length of roads
within the buffer as a measure of what percentage of roads would be
suitable for active transportation. In addition, we determined whether
or not there was at least one recreational trail within the buffer.
Finally, the connectivity of roads within the buffer was determined
using a composite measure based on the connected node ratio (number of
3- or 4-way intersections / total number of intersections), (22,23)
intersection density (number of 3- or 4-way intersections / land area),
(22,23) and average block length (total road length / number of
intersections). (22,23) Schools were ranked for each connectivity
measure, the ranks were summed, and schools were divided into quartiles
based upon this sum.
We examined whether the road in front of the schools' main
entrance had a sidewalk (yes or no), and the ratio of roads within the 1
km buffer with a sidewalk (length of roads in 1 km buffer with sidewalk
/ total road length). These measures were obtained using Google Maps
Street View software
(http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/index.html), which were
linked to the CanMap RouteLogistics street files. The Google street view
images for Canada were primarily obtained in the non-winter months of
2009.
Statistical analysis
Characteristics of the schools and their environments were profiled
using conventional descriptive statistics, according to: 1) geographic
status (degree of urbanization), and 2) grades served by the school
(primary: kindergarten to grade 8, secondary: grades 9 to 12, mixed:
grades covered by primary and secondary schools). Degree of urbanization
was determined using a census postal code analyzer ([C] 2010 CHASS,
University of Toronto), which classified schools as rural (population
density <400 persons/[km.sup.2] or population <1,000), small urban
(population density >400 persons/[km.sup.2] and population of
1,000-10,000), or large urban (population density >400
persons/[km.sup.2] and population >10,000). Fisher's exact tests
determined the significance of differences in policies,
safety/aesthetics, and built environment features according to geography
and grade. Analysis of variance determined significant differences in
ratio scores. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS
statistical software (SAS Inc., Cary, NC).
RESULTS
Administrator questionnaire responses and GIS street measures were
available for 397 schools (181 primary, 106 mixed, 110 secondary). For
the sidewalk measures, 102 schools were excluded due to lack of Google
imaging data. These 102 schools were located in rural and remote areas,
and the sidewalk data should not be considered representative of the 397
schools.
Responses to the active transportation features and policies
questions are summarized in Table 1. Greater than 70% of schools allowed
bicycles and small-wheeled vehicles (e.g., skateboards, rollerblades) on
school property, had bicycle racks, and encouraged students to use
safety gear while bicycling or using small-wheeled vehicles. Less than
40% of schools identified safe active transportation routes for their
students to use, organized 'walk to school' days or similar
initiatives, and had a designated car-free zone at the school. There
were significant urban-rural differences for the 3 bicycle-specific
measures, with more favourable scores in urban schools. There were
several significant differences between primary, mixed, and secondary
schools; primary schools had more favourable policies and programs.
Table 2 describes the safety and aesthetics of neighbourhoods
surrounding schools as perceived by the school administrators. Only 31%
of the administrators felt that there was no garbage/litter in the
streets, only 34% felt that there was not an issue with selling/using
drugs or excessive drinking in public, and only 43% felt that there was
not an issue with neighbourhood crime. About half (52%) did not consider
the vehicle traffic in the neighbourhood surrounding their school to be
heavy. The only significant differences in safety and aesthetics by
rural/urban status were for neighbourhood crime and vehicle traffic,
which were less of an issue in rural areas. In comparison to
neighbourhoods surrounding secondary schools, neighbourhoods surrounding
primary schools were less likely to report drug/alcohol problems and the
presence of vacant/shabby houses and buildings.
Features of the built environment in neighbourhoods surrounding
schools that may facilitate active transportation are described in Table
3. Approximately 58% of the schools were located on a road with a speed
limit <60 km/h. Similarly, 57% of the roads within the 1 km buffer
surrounding the schools had speed limits [less than or equal to]60 km/h.
Less than half (45%) of the schools had at least one recreational trail
within 1 km. Most (86%) had a sidewalk leading to the school; however,
only 53% of the roads in the buffer had a sidewalk. As one might expect,
schools in urban areas were more likely than schools in rural areas to
have well-connected street networks, be on a road with a speed limit
<60 km/h, be on a road with a sidewalk, and be in close proximity to
a recreational trail. Primary schools were more likely to be located on
a low speed road than secondary schools.
DISCUSSION
Our objective was to describe active transportation policies and
built environments of Canadian schools. A key finding is that schools
were more likely to implement passive active transportation policies
than they were to develop active programs. To illustrate, while 96% of
schools permitted bicycles on their property, only 28% identified safe
routes for students to follow when travelling to school. The findings
also suggest that school neighbourhoods pose several barriers for active
transportation. For example, 91% of schools in rural areas were located
on high-speed roads that may negate students from actively commuting to
school, and the principals of 62% of the schools in large urban areas
felt that neighbourhood crime was a safety issue.
The present study is novel in design in that it is national in
scope. Comparisons to past studies are possible for some findings.
Dellinger surveyed 611 American households to determine active
transportation barriers, and found that the most common barriers for
children were traffic (40%) and crime (18%). (24) Two smaller studies
also examined traffic volume and found it to be a less prevalent issue,
at 34% in Australia (25) and 23% in Oregon. (26) In our Canadian study,
concerns around traffic (48% in total, 21% in rural areas, 62% in large
urban areas) and neighbourhood crime (57% in total, 50% in rural areas,
62% in large urban areas) were common. Divergent findings between our
findings and those of other countries were also found for programs that
would encourage active transportation. In a study of 91 schools from
Norfolk county in England, 85% of schools had a travel plan (our
findings were 28% in total, 26% in rural areas, 31% in large urban
areas) and 69% had walk-to-school initiatives (our findings were 32% in
total, 34% in rural areas, 31% in urban areas). (27) Differences in the
nature of variables, reliance on child and parental questionnaires in
past studies versus administrator questionnaires in this study, and a
focus on urban regions in past studies versus a broader geographic
representation in this study may account for discrepant findings.
Our findings have policy implications. They suggest a need to make
school environments more amenable to active transportation and for
schools to develop more policies and programs. A promising example is
that of California's safe routes to school (SR2S) legislation. SR2S
features both built environment (e.g., construction of sidewalks) and
policy interventions (e.g., education on active transportation benefits)
targeted at increasing active transportation among schoolchildren. (14)
Children exposed to SR2S were three times more likely to start walking
or cycling to school. (14)
Rural and secondary schools represent priorities for intervention.
Rural schools are faced with high traffic speeds, lower street
connectivity, and reduced sidewalk access, suggesting a need for traffic
calming and future attempts to construct schools away from highways in
neighbourhoods with a better sidewalk infrastructure. A Swiss study
found that non-urban students from neighbourhoods with low traffic and
adequate sidewalks were more likely to cycle to school than urban
students. (12) Nonetheless, changes to active transportation policies
and built environments surrounding rural schools would not benefit all
children attending those schools because a large percentage of them live
too far from their school to make active transportation feasible.
Limitations of this study include the subjective nature and
distinct perspective of the persons responsible for completing the
administrator questionnaire, and the fact that the validity and
reliability of the questionnaire items are unknown. Additionally,
education ministries and schools in New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island declined to participate, limiting the study representativeness.
The road and sidewalk measures were objective. However, a lack of
imaging data to measure sidewalks for many schools in rural and remote
areas precluded their inclusion for those measures. Findings from the
administrator questionnaire and GIS road measures suggest that schools
in these areas have the highest needs.
This national study provides descriptive information on active
transportation environments and policies of Canadian schools. Children,
particularly those from rural areas and those attending secondary
schools, face a number of impediments to active transportation as a
method of travelling to school.
Acknowledgements: This study was supported by research grants from
the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (operating grants: MOP 9762
and PCR 101415) and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. The
Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Survey (HBSC), a World Health
Organization European Region collaborative study, was funded in Canada
by the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada. International
Coordinator of the HBSC is Candace Currie (University of Edinburgh).
Principal Investigators of the 2009/2010 Canadian HBSC are John Freeman
and William Pickett. The authors thank Matthew King, project manager for
the Canadian HBSC, and Hana Saab and Don Klinger, who played key roles
in the development of the administrators' questionnaire.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
Received: August 19, 2010
Accepted: April 19, 2011
REFERENCES
(1.) Sallis JF, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Kraft MK. Active
transportation and physical activity: Opportunities for collaboration on
transportation and public health research. Transport Res A-Pol
2004;38:249-68.
(2.) Sirard JR, Slater ME. Walking and bicycling to school: A
review. Am J Lifestyle Med 2008;2(5):372-96.
(3.) Active Healthy Kids Canada. Healthy Habits Start Earlier Than
You Think. The Active Healthy Kids Canada Report Card on Physical
Activity for Children and Youth. Toronto, ON, 2010.
(4.) Black WR. Sustainable transportation: A US perspective. J
Transp Geogr 1996;4(3):151-59.
(5.) Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr
J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu
Rev Public Health 2006;27:297-322.
(6.) Frank LD, Engelke PO. The built environment and human activity
patterns: Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. J Plan
Lit 2001;16(2):202-18.
(7.) Black C, Collins A, Snell M. Encouraging walking: The case of
journey-to-school trips in compact urban areas. Urban Stud
2001;38(7):1121-41.
(8.) Maddison D, Pearce D, Johansson O, Calthrop E, Litman T,
Verhoef E. Blueprint 5: The True Costs of Road Transport. London,
England: EarthScan, 1996.
(9.) Panter JR, Jones AP, van Sluijs EMF. Environmental
determinants of active transportation in youth: A review and framework
for future research. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008;5:34.
(10.) Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of
walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and
planning literatures. Ann Behav Med 2003;25(2):80-91.
(11.) Berrigan D, Pickle LW, Dill J. Associations between street
connectivity and active transportation. Int J Health Geogr 2010;9:20.
(12.) Grize L, Bringolf-Isler B, Martin E, Braun-Fahrlander 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.
(13.) Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman A, Sallis JF.
Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research
agenda. Am J Prev Med 2004;27(1):67-76.
(14.) Boarnet MG, Anderson CL, Day K, McMillan T, Alfonzo M.
Evaluation of the California safe routes to school legislation: Urban
form changes and children's active transportation to school. Am
JPrev Med 2005;28(252):134-40.
(15.) Cervero R, Radisch C. Travel choices in pedestrian versus
automobile oriented neighbourhoods. Transport Pol 1997;3(3):127-41.
(16.) Cervero R. Built environments and mode choice: Toward a
normative framework. Transport Res D-TR E 2002;7:265-84.
(17.) Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built
environment--synthesis. Transport Res Rec 2001;1780:87-114.
(18.) Larsen K, Gilliland J, Hess P, Tucker P, Irwin J, He M. The
influence of the physical environment and sociodemographic
characteristics on children's mode of travel to and from school. Am
J Public Health 2009;99(3):520-26.
(19.) Hoehner CM, Ramirez LKB, Elliot MB, Handy SL, Brownson RC.
Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity
among urban adults. Am JPrev Med 2005;28(2S2):105-16.
(20.) Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E, Marshall AL, Bauman AE, Sallis
JF. Associations of location and perceived environmental attributes with
walking in neighborhoods. Am J Health Promot 2004;18(3):239-42.
(21.) Buliung RN, Mitra R, Faulkner G. Active school transportation
in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: An exploration of trends in space
and time (19862006). Prev Med 2009;48(6):507-12.
(22.) Tresidder M. Using GIS to Measure Connectivity: An
Exploration of Issues. Portland State University, 2005.
(23.) Dill J. Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and
walking. Transport Research Board 2004 Annual Meeting (CD-ROM).
Washington, DC, 2004.
(24.) Dellinger AM. Barriers to children walking and biking to
school-United States, 1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002;51(32):701-4.
(25.) Alton D, Adab P, Roberts L, Barrett T. Relationship between
walking levels and perceptions of the local neighbourhood environment.
Arch Dis Child 2007;92(1):29-33.
(26.) Schlossberg M, Greene J, Phillips PP, Johnson B, Parker B.
School trips: Effects on urban form and distance on travel mode, 2006. J
Am Plan Assoc 2006;72(3):337-46.
(27.) Panter JR, Jones AP, Van Sluijs EM, Griffin SJ. Neighborhood,
route, and school environments and children's active commuting. Am
J Prev Med 2010;38(3):268-78.
Sean O'Loghlen, BSc, [1] William Pickett, PhD, [2,3] Ian
Janssen, PhD, [2,4]
Author Affiliations
Queen's University, Kingston, ON
[1.] School of Medicine
[2.] Department of Community Health and Epidemiology
[3.] Department of Emergency Medicine
[4.] School of Kinesiology and Health Studies
Correspondence: Ian Janssen, School of Kinesiology and Health
Studies, Queen's University, 28 Division St., Kingston, ON K7L 3N6,
Tel: 613-533-6000, ext. 78631, E-mail: ian.janssen@queensu.ca
Table 1. Active Transportation Policies and Programs Among Canadian
Schools (n=397)
Total Urban/rural Status
Small
% Responding Rural Urban
'Yes' (n=134) (n=32)
Identify safe routes for 28.0 25.8 18.8
walking/cycling to school
Organize 'walk to school' days 31.7 34.4 25.0
Designate a 'car-free zone' 35.7 36.6 36.7
Allow bicycles on school 96.3 99.3 100.0
property
Have bicycle racks 86.7 79.6 90.3
Bicycle racks (if available) 74.1 63.3 88.9
securely located
Allow small-wheeled vehicles 71.3 71.2 68.8
on school property
Encourage use of safety gear 85.5 88.2 81.3
Summative policy score
0 (worst) 20.2 20.2 25.0
1 16.9 20.2 12.5
2 22.9 25.4 21.9
3 19.9 12.7 28.1
4 (best) 20.2 21.6 12.5
Type of
Urban/rural Status School
Large
Urban Primary
(n=231) p-value (n=181)
Identify safe routes for 30.6 0.29 35.9
walking/cycling to school
Organize 'walk to school' days 31.2 0.57 39.8
Designate a 'car-free zone' 35.1 0.95 47.8
Allow bicycles on school 94.0 0.02 95.0
property
Have bicycle racks 90.4 0.01 86.6
Bicycle racks (if available) 77.9 0.004 71.4
securely located
Allow small-wheeled vehicles 71.7 0.94 62.4
on school property
Encourage use of safety gear 84.5 0.49 91.2
Summative policy score
0 (worst) 19.5 16.6
1 15.6 12.2
2 21.7 0.33 20.4
3 22.. 9 25.4
4 (best) 20.4 25.4
Type of School
Mixed Secondary
(n=106) (n=110) p-value
Identify safe routes for 24.5 18.4 0.004
walking/cycling to school
Organize 'walk to school' days 30.5 19.4 0.002
Designate a 'car-free zone' 29.5 21.7 <0.001
Allow bicycles on school 96.3 98.2 0.38
property
Have bicycle racks 87.5 86.2 0.96
Bicycle racks (if available) 68.9 83.3 0.05
securely located
Allow small-wheeled vehicles 79.8 78.0 0.002
on school property
Encourage use of safety gear 86.0 75.5 0.001
Summative policy score
0 (worst) 26.4 19.8
1 22.7 18.9
2 26.4 23.6 0.006
3 11.8 18.9
4 (best) 12.8 18.9
Table 2. Perceived Safety and Aesthetics of Neighbourhoods Surrounding
Canadian Schools (n=397)
Total Urban/rural Status
Small
% Responding Rural Urban
'No' (n=134) (n=32)
Garbage/litter/broken 31.1 28.6 34.4
glass in the street
Vacant/shabby houses 67.7 60.2 75.0
and buildings
Selling/using drugs, 33.6 30.1 41.9
excessive drinking
in public
Neighbourhood crime 42.9 50.4 50.0
Heavy traffic 52.4 79.0 43.8
Summative safety/
aesthetic score
0 (worst) 19.1 23.1 28.1
1 21.2 20.9 21.9
2 23.4 23.1 9.4
3 13.6 8.5 21.9
4 (best) 22.7 25.4 18.8
Urban/rural Status Type of School
Large
Urban Primary
(n=231) p-value (n=181)
Garbage/litter/broken 32.2 0.71 36.1
glass in the street
Vacant/shabby houses 71.0 0.07 67.8
and buildings
Selling/using drugs, 34.5 0.41 45.8
excessive drinking
in public
Neighbourhood crime 37.6 0.04 45.3
Heavy traffic 38.3 <0.001 52.5
Summative safety/
aesthetic score
0 (worst) 15.6 25.4
1 21.2 20.4
2 25.5 0.08 19.9
3 16.0 11.1
4 (best) 21.6 23.2
Type of School
Mixed Secondary
(n=106) (n=110) p-value
Garbage/litter/broken 29.4 24.5 0.11
glass in the street
Vacant/shabby houses 77.3 57.6 0.008
and buildings
Selling/using drugs, 22.0 24.8 <0.001
excessive drinking
in public
Neighbourhood crime 42.7 39.1 0.59
Heavy traffic 44.6 60.4 0.07
Summative safety/
aesthetic score
0 (worst) 8.5 19.1
1 23.6 20.0
2 34.0 19.1 0.001
3 9.4 21.8
4 (best) 24.5 20.0
Table 3. Built Environment Features in Neighbourhoods Surrounding
Canadian Schools (n=397 or 295)
Total By Geographic Status
Rural Small
(n=134 Urban
% or 123) (n=32)
Street connectivity
measure (n=397)
0 (lowest) 24.9 54.5 21.9
1 25.1 26.0 28.1
2 25.1 13.0 25.0
3 (highest) 24.9 6.5 25.0
Located on road [less than or 58.3 8.8 12.5
equal to]60 km/h (n=397)
% of roads within buffer 57.3 13.3 14.8
[less than or equal to]60
km/h * (n=397)
Have recreational trail(s) 44.8 20.9 34.4
within buffer (n=397)
Located on a street with 86.4 62.3 94.7
sidewalk (n=295)
% of roads within buffer with 52.9 26.3 38.4
sidewalk (n=295) ([dagger])
By Geographic Status
Large
Urban
(n=231) p-value
Street connectivity
measure (n=397)
0 (lowest) 9.5
1 24.2 <0.001
2 31.6
3 (highest) 31.6
Located on road [less than or 91.3 <0.001
equal to]60 km/h (n=397)
% of roads within buffer 88.7 <0.001
[less than or equal to]60
km/h * (n=397)
Have recreational trail(s) 60.2 <0.001
within buffer (n=397)
Located on a street with 92.6 <0.001
sidewalk (n=295)
% of roads within buffer with 61.5 <0.001
sidewalk (n=295) ([dagger])
By Type of School
Primary Mixed
(n=181 (n=106
or 179) or 19)
Street connectivity
measure (n=397)
0 (lowest) 22.4 22.7
1 25.7 25.5
2 29.1 24.6
3 (highest) 22.9 27.3
Located on road [less than or 63.9 60.0
equal to]60 km/h (n=397)
% of roads within buffer 60.8 47.4
[less than or equal to]60
km/h * (n=397)
Have recreational trail(s) 44.8 48.2
within buffer (n=397)
Located on a street with 87.5 91.7
sidewalk (n=295)
% of roads within buffer with 51.6 55.5
sidewalk (n=295) ([dagger])
By Type of School
Secondary
(n=110
or 97) p-value
Street connectivity
measure (n=397)
0 (lowest) 32.0
1 23.7 0.42
2 18.6
3 (highest) 25.8
Located on road [less than or 45.9 0.013
equal to]60 km/h (n=397)
% of roads within buffer 61.0 0.03
[less than or equal to]60
km/h * (n=397)
Have recreational trail(s) 41.5 0.62
within buffer (n=397)
Located on a street with 76.2 0.02
sidewalk (n=295)
% of roads within buffer with 52.0 0.57
sidewalk (n=295) ([dagger])
* Calculated as length of roads <60 km/h speed limit divided by
length of all roads within 1 km buffer.
([dagger]) Calculated as length of roads with sidewalk divided by
length of all roads within 1 km buffer.
Note: only 295 schools were included for the sidewalk measures due
to the absence of Google street view data for 102 schools.
