University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Walkability as 'freedom': the ecology of school journey in inner city Los Angeles neighborhoods

(USC Thesis Other)

Walkability as 'freedom': the ecology of school journey in inner city Los Angeles neighborhoods

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

WALKABILITY AS ‘FREEDOM’: THE ECOLOGY OF SCHOOL JOURNEY
IN INNER CITY LOS ANGELES NEIGHBORHOODS

by
Jung A Uhm

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PLANNING)

December 2008

Copyright 2008 Jung A Uhm

ii
Acknowledgements

I have been privileged to work with a truly outstanding group of faculty,
staff, and students while at USC. First and foremost, I would like to thank my
advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Tridib Banerjee, not only for his contributions to
this research but also for his continued support and motivation throughout my
doctoral studies. He has been nothing but thoughtful, inspiring, and understanding. I
would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Clara Irazabal and the late Dr.
Madeleine Stoner from the School of Social Work for their invaluable guidance and
inspiration.
Secondly, I am indebted to numerous people for their time and assistance.
Deepak Bahl of the Center of Economic Development at USC has helped me greatly
in completing the empirical part of the research. Also, I would like to thank Sangmin
Kim and Regina Pritchett for their assistance in managing the collected data and
Stephanie Kotin and Isidro Cerda for all their translation work. Special thanks to
Katharine Diaz, Peggy Hentschke and Annette Jacobs of USC Civic and Community
Relations, all of whom patiently endured my many requests. I am truly grateful to all
those who participated in this research by dedicating their time and information.
My greatest gratitude goes to all my family. I am thankful for my parent for
their constant love and support during my long years of education. Also, I am deeply
and forever indebted to my husband, Sungwook, whose never-ending support and
encouragement during this whole process gave me the strength and determination
that I needed to complete this journey.

iii
Lastly, I am grateful for a dissertation grant from the USC Urban Initiative.
The data used in this dissertation was obtained from the METANS project, 07-21,
and I am grateful to use METRANS for financial support.

iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures viii

Abstract ix

Chapter 1: Introduction – Children, Walkability and Urban Planning 1
School Travel: Trends and Influences

Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework on Walkability for Children 10
Walkability as Freedom: Insights from the Capability Approach 11
Walking for Transportation: View from Urban and Transportation
Planning
19
Walking for Health: View from Public Health 22
Walking for Exploration: View from Geography 25
In Synthesis: Child-centered Ecological Framework 28

Chapter 3: Previous Research 31
Child Characteristics 31
Household Characteristics 34
Neighborhood Characteristics 38

Chapter 4: Methods 45
Study Sites 46
Study Subjects and Recruitment 47
Research Procedure and Data Collection 50
Data Analysis 60

Chapter 5: Factors Associated with Active Commuting to and from School 62
Background Characteristics 62
School Travel Pattern 65
Child, Household, and Neighborhood Factors 67
Summary 91

v
Chapter 6: Children’s Perception of Their Neighborhood Environment and
Walking
92
Cognitive Image 92
Affective Image 106
Behavioral Image 119
Summary 122

Chapter 7: Policy Implication and Future Research 124
Summary of the Research Findings and Limitations 125
Policy Implications 129
Future Research 131
Closing Remarks 132

Bibliography 133

Appendix A: Child Questionnaire 155
Appendix B: Parent Questionnaire 159
Appendix C: Focus Group Interview Questions/Questionnaire 174
Appendix D: Built Environment Measures 176
Appendix E: Route Audit Check Sheet 178

vi
List of Tables
Table 5.1 : Child Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics 64

Table 5.2 : Normal Mode of Travel to School by School 66

Table 5.3 : Normal Mode of Travel from School by School 66

Table 5.4 : Children’s Travel Companions When Walking to/from School 67

Table 5.5 : School Travel Mode by Gender 68

Table 5.6 : Percentage of Walking Trip by Gender and Safety Perception 69

Table 5.7 : Child Encountered Traffic Barriers en route to School 70

Table 5.8 : Child Perceived Risk Factors for Walking to/from School 72

Table 5.9 : Things that Would Encourage Children to Walk /bike to
School
73

Table 5.10: School Travel Mode by Children’s Weak and Strong Social
Ties
74

Table 5.11: Children’s Preferred School Travel Mode by Their Current
School Travel Mode
75

Table 5.12: Selected Household Characteristics and Active School Travel 76

Table 5.13: Agreement to the Attitude and Perceptual Statements by
School Travel Mode
78

Table 5.14: Parents’ Agreement on the Safety of Neighborhood by Their
Child’s Perception
79

Table 5.15: Parent Perceived vs. Child Encountered Traffic Barriers 80

Table 5.16: Normal Travel Mode to and from School by Travel Distance 84

Table 5.17: Objective Built and Social Environmental Characteristics of
Children’s School Travel Route
87

vii
Table 5.18: Safety Issues in the Study Areas Raised by the Kid Watch
Volunteers
89

Table 5.19: Things to Improve the Safety of Children Walking to/from
School in the Neighborhood
90

Table 6.1 : Distribution of Elements Depicted on the Maps by School 95

Table 6.2 : Distribution of Elements Depicted on the Maps by Gender
and Travel Mode
98

Table 6.3 : Mean Size of Ascribed Range by School 99

Table 6.4 : Mean Size of Ascribed Range by Gender and Travel Mode 100

Table 6.5 : Territorial Definition by School, Gender, and Travel Mode 102

Table 6.6 : Mapping Style by School, Gender and Travel Mode 104

Table 6.7 : Distribution of Affective Places by School and Travel Mode 110

Table 6.8 : Unsafe Areas and Safety Concerns Raised by Children 115

Table 6.9: Children Identified Place Dissonance 120

Table 6.10 : Children Identified Place Dissonance by School 122

viii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 : Conceptual Framework of a Child’s Active Travel 29

Figure 4.1 : Study School Neighborhoods 47

Figure 4.2 : Selected Sites and School Characteristics 48

Figure 4.3 : Child-friendly Leaflet to Introduce the Research 52

Figure 4.4 : Sample Template of Travel and Activity Diary 55

Figure 4.5 : Sample Slide from the Photo Evaluation Activity 57

Figure 5.1 : Child Perceived Safety for Walking to/from School by School 69

Figure 5.2 : Selected Characteristics of Children’s School Travel Routes 82

Figure 5.3 : Example of the Roundabout Travel Route 86

Figure 6.1 : Distribution of Land Use Elements Depicted on the Maps 96

Figure 6.2 : Example of Maps Reflecting Autocentric Environments 97

Figure 6.3 : Example of a “Closed” (top) and an “Open” (bottom) Map 101

Figure 6.4 : Example of a “Spatial” (top) and a “Sequential” (bottom) Map 105

Figure 6.5 : Composite Images of Affective Environments 108

Figure 6.6 : Place Qualities Associated with Children’s Positive Feelings 111

Figure 6.7 : Place Qualities Associated with Children Feeling Unsafe 113

Figure 6.8 The Safest Places by Classroom 117

Figure 6.9 The Least Safe Places by Classroom 118

ix
Abstract
Over the past two decades, rising concerns over childhood obesity and its
health effects have brought the issue of ‘walkability’ to the forefront in creating a
child friendly environment. Particularly, the idea of promoting children walking to
and from school has gained widespread support among policy makers, public health
officials, civic organizations, and planners as a way to increase physical activity
among children to prevent obesity. Recent policies and programs however are based
on an assumption about the direct influence of the built environment on school travel
mode, of which parents’ values and perceptions are considered prominent in
determining environmental attributes related to children walking to school.
This research proposes a conceptual framework in understanding the
relationship between the environment and children’s travel by adding a crucial link
generally missing in current walkability research - children. By proposing the notion
of walkability as freedom, this study attempts to draw attentions to children’s choices
and real opportunities and factors that either facilitate or prohibit children in or from
actualizing what they value (walking to school as one of many). With this goal, this
research explored the elements of a walkable environment through the eyes of ethnic
minority children attending five elementary schools in inner city Los Angeles.
Through the triangulation of capability approach, child-centered participatory
methods, and ecological perspectives, the findings demonstrate children’s capacity
not only to observe and understand the environment, but also to evaluate and reflect
on making their neighborhood environment safer and walkable on their own terms.

x
This research suggests a shift in policy focus from the provision and improvement of
environmental resources to the enhancement of individual freedom by increasing
children’s participatory capability. The results of this study advance the discussion
on the relationship between active school travel and the environment by bringing
children into the foreground within the spheres of ecological transaction.

1
Chapter 1
Introduction: Children, Walkability and Urban Planning
As automobility has come to dominate everyday life, the structure and
function of urban space have transformed accordingly. While globalizing forces
further reorganize urban structures creating a “non-place urban realm” where
mobility receives preeminence to invoke Melvin Webber (1964), a sizable number of
populations, namely children, women, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor remain
‘marginalized’ in a contemporary mobile society (Freund & Martin, 1993; Thomsen,
2004). Particularly for children whose independent mobility is largely reliant on their
immediate surrounding environments, opportunities to roam freely even within their
neighborhoods have significantly diminished with the prevalence of auto-dominated
urban form (see Hillman, Adams, & Whitelegg, 1990). Children now spend a
considerable amount of their waking hours in the backseats of automobiles being
chauffeured to and from organized activities even for a short distance. Consequently,
they suffer from various “unfreedoms” that delimit the active use of body and mind
to reach their fullest potential as healthy, competent, and creative individuals.
Despite a considerable decrease in the rate of walking, pedestrian injuries
remain as the second leading cause of unintentional injury related death among
children, disproportionately affecting ethnic minority children from low-income
families (National SAFE KIDS Campaign, 2004). In 2005, 388 children ages 15 and
under died from pedestrian-related injuries and an additional 18,000 of children
suffered injuries from collision with a motor vehicle while walking (National

2
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2007). Particularly, a substantial number of
pedestrian fatality and injuries among school aged children occurs during normal
school travel hours (Walton-Haynes, 2002). While many parents decide to drive their
children to school, inter alia, to keep them safe, increasing car use comes at a high
cost that places children at greater risk of physical inactivity and obesity, just to
name a few.
In recent years, the issue of safe and active school travel has increased in
practical and scholarly importance. This is in line with a rapid increase in childhood
obesity over the past two decades, which has generated serious concerns about
adverse health and psychological outcomes (i.e., hypertension, type 2 diabetes,
depression, etc.) and a substantial increase in health expenditure associated with
childhood obesity.
1
A great deal of policy, planning, and design interests have
focused on ways to increase physical activity among children to prevent obesity.
Particularly, the journey to school has been identified as an important opportunity for
promoting daily physical activity among children (Tudor-Locke, Ainworth, Adair, &
Popkin, 2003). In the U.S., a public health initiative such as Healthy People 2010
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000) includes increasing the
proportion of active commuting to school as one of the objectives to improve
children’s health.

1
Presently, nearly one third of children and adolescents in the U.S. are either at risk for overweight or
overweight (Hedley et al., 2004). It is estimated that the nation’s health care spending attributable to
obesity-associated diseases among children has increased more than three times, from 35 million in
1979 to $127 million in 1999 (Wang & Dietz, 2002).

3
Policymakers have initiated programs at national, state, and local levels to
encourage walking to school. For example, California, among several other states
that followed, established the first statewide ‘Safe Route to School’ (SR2S) program
in 1999 through the passage of Assembly Bill 1475 (AB1475) that allowed one third
of federal transportation funds for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety
improvement projects around schools. In 2005, Congress passed the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation, Equity Act: A legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), containing $612 million for the federal SR2S program, largely
supporting physical improvement projects to date.
2
Other local, community-based
programs such as ‘KidsWalk-to-School’, ‘Walking School Bus’, or ‘Kid Watch’ are
also being carried out by engaging schools, parents, and volunteers for the promotion
of safe and active school travel.
3

The effectiveness of the current interventions, however, has brought into
question. Some argues that major public investments are being made without sound
understanding of factors influencing children’s travel and relative impacts on
children walking to school (McDonald, 2006; McMillan, 2005). Furthermore, it is
noted that the existing research on walkable environments and supportive policies

2
According to a recently published report, 70% of the funding in California has been awarded for
infrastructure projects (Hubsmith, 2007). One popular exception to this is the example of Marin
County, CA that adopted educational strategy that has achieved substantial increase in the number of
children walking to school (see Staunton, Hubsmith, & Kallins, 2003).
3
Organized by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘KidsWalk-to-School’ is a program
aiming to increase public awareness and community partnerships in increasing opportunity for
physical activity among children by encouraging children to walk to school. First originated in
England, ‘Walking School Bus’ is a program that adult volunteers lead a group of children to school
through fixed routes. Launched in 1996, ‘Kid Watch’, USC’s signature program, has mobilized over a
thousand volunteers, providing “eyes on the street” (cf., Jacobs, 1961) to create safe passage to
schools by keeping alert for possible harms during school commuting hours.

4
are largely derived from either adult-expert judgments or caregivers’ (or parents
hereafter) beliefs. For example, parents’ perceptions about neighborhood
environment along with their attitudes toward walking are often used as proxy
measures in understanding the likelihood that children will walk to school (see e.g.,
Black, Collins, & Snell, 2001; Joshi & Maclean, 1995; Kerr et al., 2006). Hence,
children’s needs are often subsumed by parental concerns and preferences despite the
fact that children are active users of the environment, whose environmental
interactions, perceptions, and needs might differ from those of adult parents. The
improvement of the built environment, social awareness, or safety education is
certainly necessary to remove barriers or sources of “unfreedoms” that may prohibit
parents from letting their children to walk to school. However, it is largely based on
assumptions that: (a) children’s travel is entirely under the control of parental
decision; (b) parents have an acute knowledge about the risks that their child may
encounter or perceive; and thus (c) environments perceived as safe and walkable by
parents may reflect how children perceive them. Through this chain of suppositions,
children have, by and large, disappeared into the backdrop of parental anxiety and
choice.
This research hence aims to present a child-friendly conceptual framework in
understanding the relationship between the environment and children’s travel by
adding a crucial link generally missing in current walkability research - children.
With this goal, the research focuses on children and their ‘real’ opportunities based
on Amartya Sen’s capability approach to address theoretical and practical issues in

5
the evaluation and development of a walkable neighborhood environment.
Particularly, the research explores the elements of a walkable environment through
the eyes of ethnic minority children in inner city Los Angeles by examining
children’s perception of the environment and how their perceived quality and
experience of the environment are correlated with the ways in which they currently
travel to school. In order to develop effective interventions for promoting safe and
active travel to school, this research further investigates individual, social milieu and
built environmental correlates of walking by examining transactions between
children, parents, and the environment. At the outset, the following section briefly
discusses the trends in school travel and possible causes that may have influenced
how children currently travel to school.

School Travel: Trends and Influences
In the U.S., how children travel to school has been transformed significantly
over the past decades. The proportion of children driven to school has increased from
14 % to nearly 48 % between 1969 and 2001, whereas those who walked or biked to
school has decreased from 42 % to 13% (McDonald, 2005a). It appears that many
children today simply do not live close enough to walk to school. Today, only 24 %
of children live within one mile of school and over half of them live more than 3
miles away from their schools (McDonald, 2005a). In analysis of longitudinal data
from the National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS), McDonald (2007)
found that increasing school commuting distance was accounted for nearly 47% of

6
the decline in walking to school between 1969 and 2001. While the likelihood of
walking is higher when children live close to school, only 31% of children living
within less than a mile distance from their schools walked in 2001, compared to
approximately 90 % of them walked in 1969 (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2003). This suggests that there are other factors than mere physical distance
influencing children’s school travel mode. The following discusses possible causes
that may have influenced how far children live from school and how children travel
to school.
School and education policies
Since early 1940s ‘economies of scale’ mentality has guided the
reorganization of the U.S. public school system to achieve economic efficiency, and
educational and administrative effectiveness (Beaumont & Pianca, 2002). Along
with decades of suburbanization, this trend towards consolidating small schools has
led to the decline of the number of schools by 69 % while the student population
continues to grow, and consequently the average school size has risen from 127 to
653 students (Lawrence et al., 2002). Although opposition to school consolidation
with supporting evidences against large school has grown over the years (i.e., better
student performance, safer, more parental and community involvement, etc.),
numerous policy, funding, and institutional biases in many states have continued to
favor large new schools built on outlying areas (see Beaumont & Pianca, 2002;
Goldberg, 2005).

7
These include state policies that require local districts to follow ‘minimum
acreage standards’ and other design guidelines suggested by the Council of
Educational Facility Planners (CEFPI), which are often hard to meet in central urban
areas where land is both scarce and expensive. Although the CEFPI removed its
earlier minimum acreage recommendation in the latest guideline, 27 states still have
policies that require minimum acreage standards either with or without alterations
from the old CEFPI guideline (see CEFPI, 2004; Weihs, 2003). State reimbursement
policies helped also by setting arbitrary percentage rules (i.e., so called, ‘two-third’
rule suggests that the cost of renovating new schools should not exceed the two third
of construction cost for building new ones), which prevent a full cost analysis and
often end up not supporting sound renovation projects (Beaumont & Pianca, 2002).
While new schools are being built farther away from where children live,
inter alia, to secure enough space for physical education, the irony is that they are
being built at the cost of taking away from children their opportunities for physical
activities and healthy social and emotional development. Especially, children in
inner city are often bused a long distance to other parts of the city either to ease
school crowding or to rectify ages of unequal educational opportunities and racial
segregation. The current No Child Left Behind law includes expanded school choice
options to low income parents in the event their child is attending a school that has
not made ‘adequate yearly progress’ for at least two consecutive years or that is a
‘persistently dangerous’ (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). It has enabled many
parents to send their children to schools outside the local area, bypassing their

8
neighborhood schools.
4
One study found that children who attended non-
neighborhood schools traveled 4.5 times more miles and as to be expected, were six
times less likely to walk to school than those attending neighborhood schools
(Wilson, Wilson, & Krizek, 2007).
Societal and cultural trends
The effect of increasing distance between home and school on auto
dependence is obviously accompanied by the rise in car ownership or availability.
While a longer distance has forced parents to drive their children to school by
necessity, other social and attitudinal factors also may have encouraged driving by
choice with respect to parental concerns, social norm, or convenience. Particularly,
issues of children’s safety have become key social and parental concerns. It is
suggested that anxiety over preventing or managing risks increasingly has become
central in understanding children and childhood when they are socially structured as
‘at risk’ (Pain, 2006; Scott, Jackson, & Backett-Milburn, 1998). Whether parental
fear of the risks that their children might face is real or ‘imagined’ (cf. Furedi, 2001),
parents’ lack of confidence in their social and physical surroundings is likely to
constrain children’s free movement. For example, concerns about traffic danger and
‘stranger danger’ are most often cited by parents as reasons for not allowing their
children to walk to school (see Dellinger & Staunton, 2002; Martin & Carson, 2005).

4
According to the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), the proportion of
children attending assigned public neighborhood schools decreased from 80% to 74% between 1993
and 2003 (Tice, Princiotta, Chapman, & Bielick, 2006).

9
In addition, driving children to school and other organized activities is often
considered as a key ingredient of ‘good parenting’, especially among mothers (see
Dowling, 2000). When social norms increasingly expect parents to accompany their
children, driving children to school may become simply a convenient and effective
way to manage daily activities (i.e., going to work, satisfying household chores, etc).
Especially, as transporting children falls more heavily on mothers than fathers, the
rise in mothers’ participation in the labor market may explain the likelihood that
working mothers drop off children at school on their way to work (McDonald, 2006;
Rosenbloom, 1987).

The current trends in school travel, as reviewed here, are associated with
physical, social and institutional context in which each child is embedded and
through this we are only beginning to understand the multifaceted nature of
children’s school travel. As much as understanding structural relationships between
factors that influence children’s travel is a timely topic that remains largely under-
explored, recognizing a relative marginalization of children even for the matters
pertaining to their immediate well-being also clearly needs to be reckoned with. In
light of this knowledge gap and a critical missing link in current research related to
children’s travel, the findings of this participatory research are expected to contribute
to the understanding of a child’s eye view of walkable environments that can impact
policies related to healthy and safe environment for children in general and active
school travel in particular.

10
Chapter 2
Conceptual Framework on Walkability for Children
Children’s travel, especially as pedestrians, has rarely been in the center of
interests in many disciplines, including planning. Although a considerable
knowledge has been accumulated primarily from child pedestrian safety and accident
prevention studies (e.g., Christoffel et al., 1991; Mayr et al., 2003; Roberts, Norton,
Jackson, Dunn, & Hassall, 1995), very little is known about what would encourage
children to walk in the first place. Recent interests in ‘active living’ have been
pushing for a multidisciplinary collaboration in formulating what is called ‘healthy
city’ for children. It signifies a collective realization that being on foot is essential
not only for the health of children, but also for overall well-being and day-to-day
functionings to reach their fullest potential. However, understanding the complexity
of relationship among elements that may enhance children’s opportunities to walk
remains to be challenging.
One of the reasons for this is that walkability is narrowly understood within a
given discipline, and usually in terms of resource environments. That is, the presence
or absence of certain resources (i.e., from physical resources such as well-connected
streets, diverse land use, and pedestrian amenities to personal and social resources
such as self-efficacy and parental support or availability) is primarily used to explain
the probability of walking. The term ‘walkability’ is normally referred to as, “the
extent to which the built environment supports and encourages walking by providing
for pedestrian comfort and safety, connecting people with varied destinations

11
within a reasonable amount of time and effort, and offering visual interest in
journeys throughout the network” (Southworth, 2005, p. 247). This environmental
quality has been promoted from various disciplinary perspectives on walking,
notably as either a mode of transportation or a form of physical activity.
Although deemed necessary, the idea of walkability as pedestrian friendly
environmental and design features, for example, often misguides us into focusing on
the means (the built environment per se), not on the ends (i.e., the effect of the means
on enhancing children’s opportunities for walking). It is especially so when such
ends are largely determined by parents as proxy respondents, not by children
themselves. Therefore, there need a comprehensive framework that broadens the
notion of walkability to include children’s real opportunities and at the same time,
bridges disciplinary boundaries in understanding essential elements that meet the
needs of child pedestrians. By adopting Amartya Sen’s capability approach as a
normative tool in conceptualizing and evaluating walkability for children, this study
proposes walkability as freedom, focusing on agency, choice, and real opportunities.
The following introduces the perspective of the capability approach,
particularly applied to children and the idea of ‘walkability as freedom’ using
insights from the capability approach.

Walkability as Freedom: Insights from the Capability Approach
Sen (1993) has offered the capability approach as a normative framework in
assessment and evaluation of various aspects of human well-being and social

12
arrangements (i.e., inequality, poverty, education, etc.). Two interrelated, but distinct
concepts are essential in his approach - ‘functionings’ and ‘capability’. He observes:
Functionings represent parts of the state of a person-in particular the various
things that he or she manages to do or be in leading a life. The capability of a
person reflects the alternative combinations of functionings the person can
achieve, and from which he or she can choose one collection. The approach is
based on a view of living as a combination of various ‘doings and beings’,
with quality of life to be assessed in terms of the capability to achieve
valuable functionings (p.31, emphasis in original).

A person’s functionings ranges from elementary ones required for survival such as
adequate nourishment and good health to more complex ones such as achieving self-
respect and engaging in social life and so on. By understanding the capability of a
person as a set of functionings, or a ‘functionings vector’ that is open to choice
depending on what he or she values, one’s capability hence reflects his or her real or
‘positive’ freedom, to invoke Isaiah Berlin (1969).
5
Thus, in this sense, “as
functionings are constitutive of well-being, capability represents a person’s freedom
to achieve well-being”(Sen, 1992, p. 49).
Sen argues that a person’s capability or freedom should be the ‘value-objects’
in making any moral judgments on states of affairs, and thus policies should focus on
removing barriers one has in leading the kind of life that he or she values. His
formulation of capability approach, especially what he considers to have normative
values in evaluative space, entails challenges to alternative philosophical approaches
based on for instance, utility, income, or one’s command over resources. Sen’s

5
By and large, negative freedom denotes that a person is not prevented from doing. On the other
hand, positive freedom indicates that a person actually can do what he or she intends to do. Thus
freedom in positive sense considers both personal and external forces that together determine one’s
freedom.

13
criticisms against welfare economics and Rawlsian theory of justice are rooted in his
distinction between the means and the ends of well-being as well as recognition of
human diversity. While Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness (1971) is also centered
on a critical reaction to the utilitarian model and the emphasis on welfare as ethical
basis of public choice, Sen criticizes Rawls for focusing on ‘primary goods’ to make
interpersonal comparisons (Sen, 1990, 1992). Primary goods, as Rawls (1971) puts
it, are “things that every rational man is presumed to want” to be able to pursue
“whatever a person’s rational plan of life” (p.62).
6
Rawlsian analysis proceeds from
‘the original position’, that is a hypothetical situation in which individuals acting as
representatives of the society with limited information about their place in society
decide on the principles of justice that is fair and just. Rawls (1971) argues that the
representative parties would choose two principles, establishing the equality of
liberty and an approach to social and economic inequalities governed by ‘the
difference principle’, which permits the greatest benefits to the worst-off members of
society in the distribution of primary goods.
Sen’s criticism against Rawls lies in an inadequate account of interpersonal
differences. Because individuals may have different ends and different abilities to
convert resources into valuable functionings, Sen (1990, 1992) argues, equal holding
of primary goods may not lead to equality of freedom. In this respect, primary goods
are necessary means with no intrinsic values, instrumental for people to achieve
functionings and have a valuable life. For example, equitable distribution and

6
Primary goods include rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, and social respect.

14
improvement of public facilities or amenities – wide sidewalks, crosswalks,
pedestrian signals, bike paths, walking trails, parks, open space, etc. – that
traditionally have preoccupied planners’ attentions to rectify previous inequities in
walkability and overall quality of life may not live up to expectations, unless
scrutinizing the context and circumstances that a person is in to actualize given
means to achieve functionings, or walking, in this case.
This criticism goes further by identifying Rawls’s position grounded on the
social contract tradition, which imagines society as a contract between free and equal
persons as “normal and fully cooperating members of society over a complete life”
(Rawls, 2001, p.18). The neglect of “non-normal” cases (i.e., the needs of disabled
people, including people in care or care-giving) hence seriously delimits the scope of
justice and equality (Sen, 1991; Nussbaum, 2003). By conceptualizing that the
individuals in the original position are not mere rational agents acting behind ‘the
veil of ignorance’, but rather heads of families, Rawls further restricts its scope by
neglecting justice within the family not to mention children (Brennan & Noggle,
2000; Evers, 1978).
When it comes to freedom or capabilities in children, it is agreed that
children are in need of care and supports in figuring out what is best for them, which
warrants further validations in applying the language of capabilities to children
(Saito, 2003). This is in line with how we conceptualize children and childhood.
Commonly understood as human becoming, not as human being now and here, a
prevailing notion portrays unfortunate image of children as particularly

15
vulnerable, incompetent and dependent (Arneil, 2002; Valentine, 1997b). Based on a
child-adult dichotomy, the process of growing up is thus understood as maturing into
a competent and rational human being worthy of social considerations, naturally
through biological development (Jenks, 1996).
During the past two decades, we have witnessed a growing emphasis on the
rights of children, especially following the United Nation’s adoption of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1989. It suggests a significant
step forward in the child-rights efforts by embracing the child as an active agent
capable of forming his or her own views (Alaimo, 2002). Hence it reflects the shift
from the perspectives of caring and protection to those of acknowledging the
capability of children for their own rights, however given due weight in accordance
with the age and maturity of children (Bartlett, Hart, Satterthwaite, de la Barra, &
Messair, 1999). Especially, the UNCRC clearly spelled out the rights of children to
have a say and to participate in decision-making process in any matters that affect
their lives, along with the rights of protection and provision.
Being entitled with rights signifies social recognition that the person, as a
human being, has an equal moral and legal status which deserves a just treatment in
one’s own right. Philosophical meanings and theoretical approaches ascribed to
rights are not without controversies which would be beyond the scope of this inquiry.
Issues raised by children’s rights are, by all means, multifaceted as well, ranging
from questions about ‘whether children ought to have rights’ to ‘rights to what’ and

16
‘who should preserve those rights’ (Archard & Macleod, 2002).
7
The language of
capabilities, Nussbaum argues (2000, 2003), has the advantage of being clear about
those disputed issues, while better focusing on raised concerns and effective
measures that directly consider what people are free to do and be, not simply what
people are deprived of. In this respect, Sen (2005, p. 152) suggests that “human
rights are best seen as rights to certain specific freedoms, and the correlate obligation
to consider the associated duties must also be centered around what others can do to
safeguard and expand these freedoms.” Especially, when we consider children, it is
not only freedoms they have now, but also freedoms they will have and exercise in
the future that we need to keep in mind (Sen in Saito, 2003).
By proposing capability as freedom concerned with “the real opportunity that
we have to accomplish what we value” (Sen, 1992, p. 31 emphasis in original), the
capability approach centers on the notion of human agency “as someone who acts
and brings about change, and whose achievements can be judged in terms of her own
values and objectives, whether or not we assess them in terms of some external
criteria as well” (Sen, 1999, p. 19). What Sen (1985, 1992, 1999) calls ‘agency
freedom’ (or ‘process aspect’ of freedom), signifies that a person is free to do or
achieve whatever goals or values that he or she wants to pursue in life. If a person is
denied a choice or coerced into doing certain things, he or she can be seen as having

7
Aside from such controversies, Archard and Macleod (2006) suggest that the recognition of
children’s rights spurred by the UNCRC, on the one hand, has generated public discourses, placing
increasing importance on ‘the moral and political status of children’. On the other hand, unsettling
claims over the rights of children are linked to dilemmas in practice which the rights discourses
remain largely at the level of advocacy.

17
limited agency freedom, even when the things forced to do are what he or she would
want and thereby achieve capabilities in the end. In contrast, ‘well-being freedom’
(or ‘opportunity aspect’ freedom) concerns a person’s freedom to achieve various
functionings that are constitutive of his or her well-being. Even in situations when
the levers of control are likely in other hands (i.e., children under the guidance of
their parents), ‘effective freedom’ still can be enhanced as long as exercised controls
over a person are in line with his or her counterfactual choice -what he or she would
choose.
8
The former aspect (agency) sees a person as “a doer and a judge”, whereas
the latter aspect (well-being) sees that same person as “a beneficiary whose interests
and advantages have to be considered” (Alkire, 2002, p. 130). Sen (1987) claims that
this distinction is “an essential and irreducible duality in the conception of a person
in ethical calculation” (p.41, emphasis in original).
Consideration of agency, well-being, and choice (including counterfactual
one) as essential elements of freedom in the space of functionings and capabilities
characterizes the inherent flexibility and pluralism of the capability approach that
should be assessed dependent upon the purposes and context of evaluation. Thereby,
Sen (2005, p. 157) asserts that “the richness of the capability perspective broadly
interpreted, thus, include its insistence on the need for open valuational scrutiny for
making social judgments, and in this sense it fits well with the importance of public

8
Sen thus asserts that ‘athleticism’ was never intended, commenting to Cohen’s (1993) criticism
made towards Sen’s concerns for capabilities as an overemphasis of the person’s ability to exercise
control. On this, see also Pettit (2001) and Kaufman (2006) for further interpretations.

18
reasoning.”
9
Sen’s deliberative ‘incompleteness’ hence suggests normative and
procedural guidance to public action and policy making, centered on the process of
enhancing human freedoms as ‘two- way relationships’. Sen (1999, p. 18) wrote,
“these capabilities can be enhanced by public policy, but also, on the other side, the
direction of public policy can be influenced by the effective use of participatory
capabilities by the public.”
Sen (1999) in his argument for ‘development as freedom’ suggests that
freedom is both an end of development and a means to development, of which five
distinct but interconnected freedoms (i.e., political freedom, economic facilities,
social opportunities, transparency and security) are instrumental in advancing the
capability of a person and his or her substantive freedom. In this respect, famine,
undernutrition, and limited access to health care, education, or employment are best
seen as deprivations of freedom or forms of unfreedom. Considering development in
terms of expanding one’s substantive freedom, as Sen puts it, is “to focus the
evaluative scrutiny on things that really matter, and in particular to avoid the neglect
of crucially important subjects” (p.34), compared to understanding development in
terms of GNP per capita for example. From this perspective, to see walkability as
freedom is hence sought to have a broader view of walkability that includes real

9
Martha Nussbaum who has written extensively about the relevancy of the capability approach on the
issues of gender departs from Sen, among others, by arguing for substantiating what Sen leaves it as
abstract (see Robeyns, 2005 for further comparisons). She argues that a certain level of human
capabilities or what she calls as “a threshold level of human capabilities” is essential for the human
beings to lead a life with dignity (Nussbaum, 2000).

19
opportunities that children have now and will have in the future in the evaluation of
walkability and the role of children as active agents in advancing these opportunities.
Policy and planning approach based on particular environmental measures largely
developed from the views of parents or adult experts, for example, may neglect
various forms of “unfreedoms” that children might have.
What follows next is a brief review of existing research on children’s travel
and walkability with specific disciplinary perspectives on the issue that help to
develop a conceptual framework that broadens the perspective of children’s school
travel.

Walking for Transportation: View from Urban and Transportation Planning
The provision of walkable environments with interests for children once was
a central element in planning. As a plan for the family-life community, the concept
of neighborhood unit envisioned elementary school as a center for community where
residents share basic services and facilities within easy walking distance for children
(see Perry, 1939). The “neighborhood unit” concept was widely accepted by city
officials, developers and social reformers and used in the suburban expansion of
American cities in the post World War II era. The unit idea lost its appeal as a
planning concept with criticism arose (i.e., deterministic in its tenet, insensitive to
diversity, and ultimately suburban ideas) in the latter half of the 20
th
century
(Banerjee & Baer, 1984; Keller, 1968). With the demise of the unit idea, planning
and designing a child-friendly neighborhood with considerations of child

20
pedestrians, although only from the aspect of physical design, have disappeared in
contemporary planning discourses (Uhm & Banerjee, Forthcoming). Its suburban
ideal, however, seems to endure as an ideal child rearing environment.
The issue of walkability, albeit not much for children, has begun to re-appear
as a response to sprawling urban growth since the early 1990s. Especially, the
emergence of new paradigms for development such as smart growth and new
urbanism has instigated the research on the role of the built environment in reducing
sprawl-induced auto traffic. By understanding travel as ‘derived’ from the demand
for activities, a considerable amount of research has been conducted to investigate
the link between the characteristics of places where planned activities happen and
travel behavior, including trip frequency, length, and mode choice (for reviews see,
Boarnet & Crane, 2001; Crane, 2000; Ewing & Cervero, 2001). Primarily focusing
on the motorized trips of adults, the theoretical foundation of travel behavior
research lies in the notion of utility maximization. By considering a transportation
choice as discrete, it assumes that individuals make rational decisions among given
alternatives in their choice set on the basis of utility (Handy, 2005). The built
environment, in this sense, is understood to play a role by influencing travel cost
(i.e., time and monetary cost), which individuals make travel decisions to minimize
their travel cost between origin and destination (Boarnet & Crane, 2001; Boarnet &
Sarmiento, 1998; Crane, 1996a, , 1996b; Crane & Crepeau, 1998).
Studies that specifically focus on non-motorized travel (i.e., walking or
biking) have also appeared with increasing frequency in the past decade. The

21
likelihood for individuals to walk has been empirically tested for different
neighborhood types (Handy, 1996; Handy, Cao, & Mokhtarian, 2006; Moudon,
Hess, Snyder, & Stanilov, 1997; Shriver, 1997); land use pattern (Cervero &
Duncan, 2003; Cervero & Kockelman, 1996; Frank & Pivo, 1994; Greenwald &
Boarnet, 2001); street network, including accessibility and connectivity (Cervero &
Duncan, 2003; Cervero & Kockelman, 1996; Krizek & Johnson, 2006); and
pedestrian environment features (Alfonzo, Boarnet, Day, McMillan, & Anderson,
2008; Rodriguez & Joo, 2004). This literature provides evidence of correlations
between various aspects of the built environment and adults’ walking trips. Children
are however simply considered as trip generators who influence the amount of
household travel (especially of mothers) and range of travel options (see McDonald,
2005b).
These studies now bear the burdens of proof of causation. Many cross-
sectional studies fall short of meeting the criteria of temporal precedence and non-
spuriousness (Handy, Cao, & Mokhtarian, 2005). For example, environmental
variations might be less relevant to some people with high motivations for walking
or not walking (attitude towards travel). Those who value walking might choose to
live in neighborhoods that would enable them to walk (residential preference). Also,
environments normally considered favorable to pedestrians (i.e., wide sidewalk,
mixed use, well connected streets, etc.) might not be perceived as such by some
(environmental perception). Travel behavior researchers are beginning to account for
the effects of preference or attitude in mostly cross sectional analysis and found a

22
significant role of attitudinal influence in explaining travel behavior (e.g., Bagley &
Mokhtarian, 2002; Handy, 1996; Khattak & Rodriguez, 2005; Kitamura,
Mokhtarian, & Laidet, 1997; Lund, 2003; Shriver, 1997). A recent quasi-longitudinal
study by Handy and colleagues (2005, 2006), which examined travel behavior
between movers and nonmovers, found that the built environment, however,
remained significantly linked to walking trips even after controlling for the
possibility of self-selection.
In considering walking as a mode of transport, urban and transportation
planning research has presented valuable insights into the ways in which
environmental factors may play a role in influencing walking behavior or achieving
functionings. However, the application of utility maximizing theory does not fully
capture individual motivations or constraints that come into play in making decisions
and hence come short in explaining structural relationships that are likely to
determine one’s choice for walking, which also can be valued for its own sake. In
addition, information on what children value and would choose are largely missing,
and at best subsumed under adults’ travel choice. When ‘conversion-ability’ of
children, in Sen’s term, significantly differs from that of adults, the given
environments might not work the same way in children as in adults.

Walking for Health: View from Public Health
Walking in public health discipline is considered as the most simple and
common form of physical activity, which has proven to benefit the health of all

23
ages if done consistently (see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
1996). Unlike urban and transportation planning that has considered walking for the
utilitarian purpose of transport, health researchers traditionally have exclusively
focused on a different subset of physical activity-walking for recreation (Sallis,
Frank, Saelens, & Kraft, 2004). Under this notion, physical activity researches have
been largely guided by various psychosocial theories that emphasize the influence of
one’s cognitive and social factors on health behavior (Hoehner, Brennan, Brownson,
Handy, & Killingsworth, 2003; King, Stokols, Talen, Brassington, & Killingsworth,
2002). For example, theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986) have provided useful conceptual frameworks in
understanding the relations among various personal factors (i.e., belief, attitude,
intention, perceived behavioral control or self efficacy, or motivation) and physical
activity behavior among different population groups (i.e., women, ethnic minority,
older adults, children, low income), of which the latter theory suggests reciprocal
relations with social environmental influence (see e.g., Booth, Owen, Bauman,
Clavisi, & Leslie, 2000; Dye & Wilcox, 2006; Marquez & McAuley, 2006; Strauss,
Rodzilsky, Burack, & Colin, 2001).
Over the past decade, the field of physical activity research has been evolving
rapidly to broaden its horizon by embracing the idea of ‘active living’ that
incorporates a broader range of physically active behaviors (e.g., occupational or
utilitarian activities) and expanding its focus beyond individual and cognitive
domains (Sallis et al., 2006). In order to better frame broader and various factors

24
that may influence behavior, ecological models have been increasingly promoted
among researchers in this field (see e.g., Hoehner et al., 2003; King et al., 2002;
Saelens, Sallis, Black, & Chen, 2003; Sallis et al., 2004; Spencer & Blades, 2006).
Derived from the work of Bronfenbrenner (1979), the ecologic perspective clarifies
the multidimensionality and multilevel nature of health behavior constructs that
encompasses the role of individual, social, environmental, and policy variables.
Especially, it has generated interests on the effect of the built environment to attain
long term effects on promoting active living (Sallis & Owen, 1999).
The built environment measures examined in physical activity studies are
rather loosely selected, largely looking at a range of self-reported environmental
attributes of individuals’ immediate surroundings, perceived as either supports or
barriers to physical activity of varying intensities in adults (e.g., accessibility or
convenience of physical activity facilities, aesthetic features, safety, sidewalk, hills,
weather, etc.). While objective environmental measures are increasingly promoted to
overcome methodological limitations of relying on perceived measures in physical
activity researches, these studies are largely focused on a limited set of
environmental characteristics associated with walking for leisure purpose and less
explicit about overall land use patterns or built form. Also, like travel behavior
research, the majority of these studies are largely cross-sectional and thus unable to
make any causal inference (for reviews see, Handy, 2005; Humpel, Owen, & Leslie,
2002; Lee & Moudon, 2004; Owen, Humpel, Leslie, Bauman, & Sallis, 2004;
Wendel-Vos, Doroomers, Kremers, Brug, & van Lenthe, 2007).

25
It is suggested that environmental attributes associated with walking are
different according to its purpose and type (see Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002;
Hoehner, Brennan Ramirez, Elliott, Handy, & Brownson, 2005; Lee & Moudon,
2006). It is also likely to differ depending on who is doing the walking, but has
remained largely under-explored in public health research (Saelens, Sallis, & Frank,
2003). For instance, most of the research to date has looked at access to physical
activity facilities and neighborhood barriers perceived largely by parents in relation
to children’s physical activity (see Ferreira et al., 2006 for review). Only a small
number of studies have examined children’s own perceptions about their
neighborhood environments and their association with a level of walking to various
destinations (e.g., Alton, Adab, Roberts, & Barrett, 2006; Hume, Salmon, & Ball,
2005; Timperio, Crawford, Telford, & Salmon, 2004).
The focus of physical activity research on psychosocial factors, by and large,
tends to emphasize one’s belief about his or her capabilities, and thus less explicit
about how it acts on actual capabilities. However, these studies have contributed to
better understanding of a decision to walk that are more tailored toward individual
constraints or freedoms (either perceived or actual), which are specific to one’s
settings and purposes.

Walking for Exploration: View from Geography
Studies of children’s experience, perception, and behavior in geographical
space have long been of interest to scholars from a range of disciplines, notably

26
psychology, that share the same passion for understanding the ‘lifeworlds’ of
children (see Aitken, 1994; Matthews, 1992 for review). By and large, they suggest
that children come to know the self and the world around them by interacting with
the environment through exploration, control, or manipulation that simply can be
understood as play (Chawla, 1992; Hedley et al., 2004; Moore, 1986; Sell, 1985;
Southworth, 2005). For children, being able to move around freely - walking or
biking as only form of independent mobility - not only promotes environmental
learning, competence, and self-esteem by negotiating everyday life in the
environment, but also increases opportunities to engage with other children and
adults (Prezza et al., 2001; Rissotto & Tonucci, 2002). Walking, in this sense, is an
essential part of growing up, meaning beyond simply an active mode of
transportation or a healthy way of living.
Since the 1990s, the so-called ‘cultural turn’ in geography has drawn
attentions to the importance of difference and diversity in understanding the nature
of geographical environment of children. This has accompanied by the recognition of
childhood as a social construction that challenges the traditional views of childhood
as a natural or biological phenomenon (see Prout & James, 1990). By
conceptualizing children as “a neglected social grouping undergoing various forms
of sociospatial marginalization”(Matthews & Limb, 1999, p. 62), geographical
inquiries have moved towards a richer appreciation of childhood space as a reflection
of unequal power relations that is largely adult centric (Philo, 2000). Valentine
(1996) argues that the adult’s anxieties for the protection of established social

27
orders in general and parents’ concerns for the safety of their children in particular
construct a ‘moral panic’ that has become a justification for restricting children’s
presence and freedom in public space. In extreme occasions, measures such as
juvenile curfews are enforced, often targeting certain ethnic minority children (see
Collin & Kearns, 2001; Davis, 1990).
Policymakers and planners tend to address adult or parental anxieties in the
form of parks, playgrounds, and other open spaces designed to foster adult-centered
efficiency and utility maximization. Consequently, children are constrained by
limited mobility and forced into fragments of adult-determined ‘token spaces’ with
false assumptions about universalizing needs of children, (Matthews & Limb, 1999;
Zeiher, 2003). Values embedded in such physical environments are indeed ‘negative
freedoms’ for children in the names of nurture, protection and control. In this vein,
children’s freedom of independent mobility encompasses concerns not only for
children’s free range within social, cultural and environmental contexts (i.e.,
parenting cultures, societal norms, child-adult relations, environmental opportunities,
etc.), but also for their competence in negotiating environmental opportunities and
risks in public realm.
Being dependent upon a negotiation between child, parents, and the
environment (Perez & Hart, 1980), children’s spatial movement, or a ‘license’ (cf.,
Hillman et al., 1990) to move around independently is influenced by a child’s
characteristics, particularly age and sex (Hart, 1979; Hillman & Adams, 1992;
Matthews, 1987); ethnicity and other sociocultural characteristics of the family

28
(O'brien, Jones, Sloan, & Rustin, 2000; Valentine, 1997a); parents’ (especially of
mothers’) psychosocial characteristics (i.e., sense of community, perceived safety or
danger, social network, etc.) (Blakely, 1993; Prezza et al., 2001; Valentine, 1997b);
and environmental settings or characteristics (Kyttä, 1997; Mattsson, 2002; O'brien
et al., 2000). It is suggested that children are oftentimes more competent in managing
their own personal safety than parents would normally believe. Furthermore,
children often actively engage in negotiating their parents’ understanding of their
environmental competence (Valentine, 1997b).
Studies of geography of children have directed attentions to children as an
active agent in managing and negotiating their free movement within the context of
opportunities and constraints. Although this literature is largely exploratory, the
inclusion of intergenerational negotiation centered on children in understanding their
walkability is an important value that is mostly missing in the aforementioned groups
of studies.

In Synthesis: Child-centered Ecological Framework
The review of walkability research across disciplines suggests that a set of
nested and interconnected elements at individual, household, community, and
institutional/policy level collectively influences the propensity of children walking.
Figure 2.1 presents a conceptual framework of a child’s active travel, focusing on
children as active agents in negotiating their freedom through transaction with their
physical and social surroundings within the context of multiple spheres of

29
Individual level
Household level
Community level
Institutional/
Policy level
SOCIAL
MILIEU
BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD
ENVIRONMENT
Policy measures
MODIFYING
FACTOR
CHILDREN
PERCEIVED
NEIGHBORHOOD
PROPENSITY
TO WALK
influences. The framework broadens the perspective of children’s travel by: (a)
including a child in making decisions about trip to school; (b) highlighting ecological
factors that are likely to determine a child’s opportunity for a school trip (conversion
factors); and (c) asserting the needs of policy to focus on enhancing real
opportunities for a child to walk to school (freedom) through effective use of
participatory capabilities of children.

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework of a Child’s Active Travel

Although children may not have a full control over decision making about
how they travel to school, this framework assumes that children may have needs for
and perceptions of environment with respect to school travel or walking trip that are
different from their parents. The proposed framework departs from an existing model
(cf., McMillan, 2005) centered on factors likely to influence parental decision-
making that presumes what parents perceive as walkable for their child would suffice
to enhance walkablity for children. The framework here proposes that children’s

30
perception of neighborhood environment (both physical and social) creates initial
attitudes or preferences for walking and is modified by individual conversion factors
that create an opportunity set for children, determining a child’s propensity to walk
to/from school. Conversion factors include those at the individual (i.e., a child’s
motivation to walk, a child’s experience of school travel), household (i.e., parental
availability, transportation option, parents’ attitudes and travel behavior), community
(i.e., social norms, social network), and institutional/policy (i.e., school
transportation and education policy) level. Within this framework, policy measures
should reflect children’s counterfactual choices (or what children would choose to
improve their opportunities) and focus on modifying factors likely to ensure their
choices.
Based on this model, this dissertation research explores: (a) factors associated
with children’s school travel mode, particularly of walking trips at the individual,
household, and neighborhood level; (b) child perceived barriers to and attractors of
walking for school journey, in comparison with those of their parents; and (c)
children’s perception of their neighborhood environment and their environmental
needs for safe walking experience and activity. The following chapter presents a
review of previous research that has provided preliminary understanding of the
nature of layers of attributes associated with children’s travel activity and school
travel mode.

31
Chapter 3
Previous Research
Following the conceptual framework presented previously, this chapter
describes factors at each level of ecology – child, household, and neighborhood - that
may influence children’s school travel mode in order to identify and understand
major sources of unfreedom and ways to remove them. Research on children’s travel
remains quite limited, although recently has been growing. However, the literature
on travel behavior, physical activity, urban design, and children’s geography from
which this dissertation research is mainly drawn provides an important knowledge
base for understanding likely factors for children’s walking trip.

Child Characteristics
It is suggested that at the individual level, age and gender are important in
determining children’s spatial range behavior, conditioned by child-parent
relationships. While children’s spatial knowledge and ability to cope with traffic
risks are likely to progress as they grow older, parents tend to allow more
independence to boys than girls (see Hart, 1979; Hillman et al., 1990; Kyttä, 1997;
Matthews, 1987; O'brien et al., 2000; van Vliet, 1983). On the contrary, Valentine
(1997a) suggests that parents’ differential view of children’s spatial abilities ascribed
to their child’s gender seems to be changing. In interviews with parents of children
aged 8 to 11, she found that girls were perceived to be “more responsible, more
rational and to have more self control than boys” (p. 58).

32
The influence of a child’s gender on travel mode choice to school, however,
appears to be mixed, possibly due to other confounding factors. A few studies have
verified that more boys than girls walk or bike to school (Evenson, Huston,
McMillan, Bors, & Ward, 2003; Timperio et al., 2006; Yarlagadda & Srinivasan,
2008). Similarly, in a study of ten California Safe Route to School communities,
McMillan and colleagues (2006) found that girls were over 40 percent less likely to
actively travel to school than boys. Yet, this relationship was significantly moderated
by the parent’s own activity level. In other studies, a child’s gender was however
found to have little or no significant effect on walking or being driven to school
(McDonald, 2005a; Wen et al., 2008).
Mostly correlated with their socioeconomic situation, minority ethnic
children in inner city chronically suffer from both “setting aggravation” (i.e.,
presence of undesirable and hazardous facilities and land use) and “setting
deprivation” (i.e., absence of desirable amenities and services) (Banerjee & Baer,
1984). They tend to commonly play on the street, sidewalk or parking lot with
limited access to alternative and safer activity spaces, and thus have greater exposure
to traffic danger (see Hedley et al., 2004; Rivara & Barber, 1985). According to
2000-2001 California Statewide Household Travel Survey, Latino and African
American children are more likely to walk or bike than Caucasian and Asian children
(Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2003). Using the 2000 San Francisco Bay
Area Travel Survey data, Yarlagadda and Srinivasan (2008) also found that
Caucasian and Asian children were more likely to be driven to school by their

33
mothers. In a study of 34 public elementary schools in California, Braza and others
(2004) found that schools with a high proportion of ethnic minority students walked
or biked to school significantly more.
To children, the value and meaning of school journey seem to be at variance
with a basic assumption in the theory of travel that suggests travel as derived from
the demand grounded in the notion of utility maximization. In a study with children
aged 10 to12 in Fife, Scotland where children walking to school still remained
common, Ross (2007) presented a “thick description” (cf., Geertz, 1973) of
children’s school journey experience through self-directed photography. Children’s
photographs with accompanying comments have revealed how children interact with
people and places in their localities, manage risks, and negotiate their journeys. For
some of these children, the school journey was a time of wonder, pondering about
things in solitude. He suggested that children’s school journeys were situated in
“experiential and sensory geographies, demonstrating children’s active, emotional
and imaginative engagements, as they react to the fabric of their everyday
environment and incorporate this into their movement and play” (p. 383).
These values of school journey shared by children are closely linked to their
desires to use an active mode of travel to school. In a study of primary school
children’s school traveling experience in Auckland, New Zealand, Mitchell and
others (2007) revealed children’s desires for walking or biking to school through
writing activities. Especially, 58% of those driven to school stated a wish to change
how they currently traveled to school, seeking opportunities for social interaction,

34
exploration, and developing healthier body and mind. While children expressed their
desires for more active mode to travel to school, at the same time, they felt that it
would be unlikely to happen due to current conditions such as long distance to
school, parents’ work schedule, and the like (Lee & Tudor-Locke, 2005). It may, in
some parts, lead to children who are passive travelers prefer to stay with their current
mode or they may as well become habituated with passive mode of travel. Collin and
Kearns (2001) found a moderate negative correlation between children who were
driven and those who preferred to walk to school, which raises concerns for children
becoming accustomed to a sedentary lifestyle. No previous study however has
directly looked at a child’s attitude and preference as exploratory factors that may
influence how they travel to school through negotiating with parents in making travel
decision.

Household Characteristics
Along with income, household resources such as motor vehicles and number
of drivers’ license holders that determine transportation options available to the
household have been found to be positively correlated with auto trips and negatively
correlated with the use of transit and non-motorized trips among adults (Kitamura et
al., 1997). In California, children from households with annual income below
$25,000, normally having fewer vehicles, are nearly three times more likely to walk
or bike than those from households with annual income above $75,000 (STPP,
2003). Studies have consistently found that the number of cars available in the

35
household is a strong predictor of children being driven to school (see e.g.,
Bradshaw, 1995; DiGuiseppi, Roberts, Li, & Allen, 1998; Ewing, Schroeer, &
Greene, 2004; Wen et al., 2008).
Closely associated with the effect of auto ownership on the school journey is
the possibility of linking it with other activities, especially journey to work. One
U.K. based study found that nearly 60% of parents reported to drive their children to
school on the way to work in the morning (Bradshaw, 1995). In previous studies,
parents frequently cited that dropping off children at schools was convenient for
them when they needed to continue on to work, along with other pragmatic reasons
(i.e., child carrying heavy backpack, bad weather, busy morning, and the like)
(Ahlport, Linnan, Vaughn, Evenson, & Ward, 2008; Collins & Kearns, 2001;
Schlossberg, Greene, Phillips, Johnson, & Parker, 2006). Especially, when mothers
are in workforce, they are more likely to drive their children to school (McDonald,
2005a; Yarlagadda & Srinivasan, 2008). In a study of primary school children aged
9 to 11 in Sydney, Wen and others (2008) found that children were less likely driven
to or from school when their parents did not drive to work (see also, Merom, Tudor-
Locke, Bauman, & Rissel, 2006). As it becomes less convenient for parents to pick
up their children in the afternoon with inflexible work schedules, many children who
were driven to school often took alternative modes for the trip from school (see
Bradshaw, 1995; Schlossberg et al., 2006).
While children are suggested to be positively associated with the frequency
of car trips, a number of studies have suggested that having more than one school

36
going child tends to encourage walking in case for school trip (McDonald, 2005a;
McMillan, 2003; Rhoulac, 2005). In focus group interviews with 4
th
and 5
th
grade
children and their parents in North Carolina, Ahlport and others (2008) yet revealed
that the presence of siblings were also identified as barriers to walking by both
children and parents. Some of the children complained that younger siblings could
not keep up when they were walking together. Some of the parents felt their younger
kids were still too young to walk with older siblings and thus decided to drive them
to school, rather than letting older ones to walk alone. Also, driving became more
convenient for parents to coordinate travel needs of multiple children when they
would go to different schools at different times.
In addition to material resources and parental availability that are likely to
determine household transportation and child escorting options, parents’ subjective
mental constructs such as attitudes may as well affect how their children travel to
and from school. Although it did not directly examine school travel, a study by
Kitamura and others (1997) examined the relationship between land use, attitudes
and travel behavior of adult residents in San Francisco neighborhoods and found that
individual attitude factors (e.g., attitudes towards the environment, public transit,
automotive mobility, transportation control, time) were closely associated with travel
frequency and mode choice, stronger than the association between land use
characteristics and travel. Particularly, walking or biking had a significant positive
correlation with both pro-environment and pro-transit attitudes, whereas inversely
correlated with automotive mobility attitude (see also, Handy et al., 2005, 2006;

37
Lund, 2003). When holding other variables constant, Black and others (2001) found
that changes in parental attitudes related to car centeredness had the most impact on
changing car use for the school journey, compared to modifying environmental
awareness or individual responsibility attitudes. In addition, parents’ perceptions
about the importance of physical activity in the lives of children were found as a
strong predictor of children’s engagement in walking or biking for the school trip
(Ziviani, Scott, & Wadley, 2004).
Parents felt that active commuting to or from school would need a
commitment on their parts, requiring energy and motivation (Ahlport et al., 2008).
When parents lack motivation for walking, they are less likely to encourage their
children to walk to school. In physical activity research, several studies have found
that children whose parents are physically active tend to be physically active as well
(e.g., Anderssen & Wold, 1992; Freedson & Evenson, 1991; Moore et al., 1991). In
this sense, parents’ own travel activity may influence how their children travel to
school. McMillan and others (2006) found that active parents increased the
likelihood that their girls would walk or bike to school.
Making traveling decision on how their children go to school, however, tends
to involve more than having positive attitudes and motivation about walking, when
parental concerns about the safety of children may overwhelm these subjective
values. Previous studies found that the safety concerns of parents (i.e., abduction,
traffic accidents, bullies, etc.) were among the strong predictors that determined the
probability of children walking to school (e.g., Ahlport et al., 2008; DiGuiseppi et

38
al., 1998; McMillan, 2003; Ziviani et al., 2004). Also, parents who lacked confidence
in their child’s competence in managing risks were less likely to allow children to
walk to school (Ahlport et al., 2008; Wen et al., 2008). In a study that examined the
association between neighborhood walkability, parental concerns, and active
commuting to school in Seattle, Kerr and others (2006) found that children were five
times more likely to walk to school when their parents had few concerns than those
whose parents expressed many concerns. They found that parents from low income
neighborhoods showed the most concerns despite the fact that neighborhoods were
walkable from the aspects of built form. It is likely that social nature of risks were
more prevalent in such neighborhoods.

Neighborhood Characteristics
Both parents and children have reported that the distance one lives from the
school is the most common barriers to walking (Ahlport et al., 2008; Collins &
Kearns, 2001; Dellinger & Staunton, 2002). Previous research has consistently found
that spatial distance (either actual or perceived) is most likely to influence how
children travel to and from school, as one would expect (e.g., Black et al., 2001;
Bradshaw, 1995; DiGuiseppi et al., 1998; Ewing et al., 2004; Timperio et al., 2006;
Wen et al., 2008). Especially, living less than 1 mile from school was found to
significantly increase the likelihood of children walking to school (McMillan, 2003;
Schlossberg et al., 2006). McDonald (2007) suggests that increasing travel distance
alone may account for half of the decline in active commuting to school between

39
1969 and 2001 in the U.S. Particularly, distance was found to more strongly
influence the trip to school than from school (Yarlagadda & Srinivasan, 2008),
probably linked to different personal and familiar conditions (i.e., time constraint,
management, travel coordination, etc.) between morning and afternoon hours.
Safety
The second most cited barrier following distance in the studies of children’s
travel choice was safety, echoed by the aforementioned parental concerns. Perceived
safety, regardless of its linkage to objective measures (i.e., crime occurrence,
pedestrian collision, etc.), may influence, if not determine, an individual’s decision
to walk. Although evidences are mixed (see Loukaitou-Sideris, 2006 for a review), a
number of studies have found a higher level of walking or physical activity among
people who perceived their neighborhood as safe (e.g., Alfonzo et al., 2008;
Weinstein, Feigley, Pullen, Mann, & Redman, 1999). The association between
perceived safety and walking has been found stronger for vulnerable groups such as
the elderly, ethnic minorities, women, and children (Day, 2006).
Children’s fear and anxiety are likely to vary depending on the level of
exposure to safety related issues, either directly experienced or constructed by
indirect sources, such as media coverage, anecdotal story or parental guidance. Alton
and others (2006) found that children who frequently made their trips on foot were
more likely to perceive that there were heavy traffic in the streets and that roads were
dangerous. Those who did not walk frequently, on the other hand, were concerned
more about strangers. Other studies have also found that children’s concerns and

40
risk perceptions clearly vary according to their specific localities as well as their own
identity within larger sociocultural context (e.g., Collins & Kearns, 2001; Farver,
Ghosh, & Garcia, 2000; Mitchell et al., 2007; Woolley, Dunn, Spencer, Short, &
Rowley, 1999). In addition, children’s safety concern has been found to differ in its
types and degree of intensity from those of adults. In a study that compared parents’
perception of probable risks with children’s concerns and actual encounters, Lee and
Rowe (1994) found no correlation. For example, while parents perceived traffic
dangers as most serious threats to children and also ranked high as a probable risk,
children were most worried about being exposed to smoking, whereas less concerned
about traffic accidents. Timperio and others (2004) found that children were overall
more upbeat about their neighborhoods than their parents perceived. Conversely, in a
large scale qualitative research that interviewed children from two urban
communities marked by high rates of school and community violence, Meyer and
Astor (2002) found that the level of safety concerns reported by children, including
fear of victimization and violence, were more severe than their parents. With a
heightened sense of risk, these children expressed a high desire for getting driven to
school to make their journey safer.
While previous studies on school travel tend to weigh heavily on parents’ risk
perceptions, it is important to note that children have an intimate knowledge of place
specific activities causing safety concerns (Nayak, 2003). Urban scholars and
designers have long suggested to ‘design out’ crime and traffic risks through
revitalizing street life with enhanced natural surveillance, improving territoriality,

41
and ultimately, making streets as livable spaces (Appleyard, 1981; Jacobs, 1961;
Newman, 1972). While safety issues need to be examined with sensitivity to specific
localities and individuals, the presence of certain physical and social attributes in the
neighborhood appears to cue a sense of insecurity. The presence of physical disorder
(i.e., graffiti, boarded-up or “broken windows” (cf., Wilson & Kelling, 1982), litter,
empty beer bottles, and abandoned buildings or cars) and social incivilities (i.e.,
homeless, public drunkenness, gangs, drug selling activities, and tagging graffiti) are
likely to increase a sense of fear, which may limit walking and active living (Day,
2006; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2006). Also, obstructed views or limited visual access,
restricted surveillance from the “eyes on the street” (cf., Jacobs, 1961), and lack of
familiarity can cause distress, and thus negatively influence on walking (Kaplan,
Kaplan, & Ryan, 1998).
Several environmental attributes have been identified as risk factors for child
pedestrian injuries, which delimit children’s opportunities for walking. Studies have
found that streets with high traffic volumes, high posted speeds, number of parked
cars, and absence of play areas for children pose a greater risk of injuries to child
pedestrians (Agran, Winn, Anderson, Tran, & Del Valle, 1996; Appleyard, 1981;
Mueller, Rivara, Shyh-Mine, & Weiss, 1990; Roberts et al., 1995). While many
parents drive their children to school, inter alia, for safety reason, children felt
threatened by high traffic volumes in the vicinity of the school (Collins & Kearns,
2001). Also, the absence or inadequate provision of pedestrian amenities such as

42
sidewalks, crosswalks, and signalization en route to school presents a high risk to
children (Transportation Research Board, 2002).
Built environment
Density measures (i.e., people, jobs, residences) are among the most
consistent positive correlates of walking. Frank and Pivo (1994) found that walking
trips were significantly correlated with employment density and population density,
where the latter had the most effect on walking for both work and shopping. Cervero
and Kockelman (1996) found that intensity factor that contained broader measures of
density (i.e., retail store density, activity center density, park intensity, population
density, and walking accessibility) was associated with higher rates of non-motorized
trips. Measured at nine geographical scales, Forsyth and others (2007) found that
density measures were associated with trip purpose of which higher density
promoted walking for transport, whereas lower density promoted leisure walking.
Yet, no difference was found on overall level of walking and physical activity across
residential densities. Residential and population density, possibly correlated with
school distance and size, were positively associated with active commuting to school
(Braza et al., 2004; Kerr et al., 2006; McDonald, 2005b).
The mix of different land uses, especially having shops, restaurants, offices,
parks and other activity centers in the close vicinity of one’s residence, also appears
to relate to walking. In a study of the San Francisco Bay Area, Cervero and Duncan
(2003) found that land use diversity at the trip origin was the strongest predictor of
walking among the built environment measures. However, the influence of the

43
built environment on walking, in their model, was far weaker than other control
variables such as personal and household attributes as well as other exogenous
factors (i.e., topography, slope, weather, etc.). In a study of Austin neighborhoods,
Handy (1996) found that shorter distances to destinations with quality pedestrian
environment that may ensure sense of comfort and safety as well as perceived
accessibility were associated with increased walking. A number of studies have
confirmed that access or route directedness to local amenities is a strong predictor of
walking (e.g., Handy et al., 2005; Krizek & Johnson, 2006; Lund, 2003; Moudon et
al., 1997; Shriver, 1997). It was also supported by Schlossberg and others (2006)
who found that children whose routes had higher intersection densities and lower
dead-end densities were more likely to walk. Counterintuitive to this general finding,
Timperio and others (2006) found that a direct route or connectivity to school was
associated with less walking among children aged 10 to 12, suggesting that
children’s travel might be more influenced by traffic safety concerns, different from
adults’ value for reducing travel time.
Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities (e.g., sidewalk continuity and
maintenance, street crossings, street lights, etc.) and streetscapes that are safe,
attractive and inviting are also likely to encourage walking. In a study that examined
the influence of density, diversity, and design on travel demand, Cervero and
Kockelman (1996) found that a factor associated with walking quality (i.e., sidewalk,
street light, planted strips, block length, and flat terrain) was a strong predictor of
walking, biking or transit use. Moudon and others (1997) found that completeness

44
of pedestrian facilities (i.e., block size and sidewalk length) was strongly associated
with pedestrian volume (see also, Rodriguez & Joo, 2004). Several studies have also
found a significant association between the presence and continuity of sidewalk and
the incidence of children walking (e.g., Ewing et al., 2004; Fulton, Shisler, Yore, &
Caspersen, 2005; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). This finding would
merit pedestrian infrastructure improvement projects such as SR2S, which showed
some evidence of success in inducing more walking among children and improving
the overall image of neighborhoods (see Appleyard, 2005; Boarnet, Anderson, Day,
McMillan, & Alfonzo, 2005).

The literature reveals the dynamic interplay of multilevel elements in
children’s school journey, including transportation mode as well as the quality of the
journey itself. The meaning of school journey, to children, lies in the opportunities it
creates for children to participate, make choices, realize or learn about the self and
the things that surrounds them, which is beyond the adult’s preoccupation with
efficiency, protection, and control. This dissertation research aims to provide
children’s side of story about school journey as to help policy makings that can
enhance actual opportunities or freedom of children. The following chapter describes
research methods and procedures designed to achieve this goal.

45
Chapter 4
Methods
This study utilized an exploratory and explanatory research strategy. The
study provides better insights into children’s environmental perceptions as they
relate to school traveling choices and experiences, along with parents’ perceptions
likely to influence a child’s school travel mode. The study also examines individual,
household, and neighborhood correlates of children walking to and from school.
A cross-sectional case study of 4 elementary school neighborhoods in inner
city Los Angeles was used in the study.
9
To measure objective as well as subjective
quality of neighborhood environments for child pedestrians, the study adopted both
qualitative and quantitative research methods, collecting data from both children and
parents. Particularly, the study used various child-centered research methods, which
encouraged children to observe, document, and evaluate their neighborhood
environment. Along with child generated materials, the parent survey, focus group
interview later supplemented by questionnaires, and the built environment audit
served as the main sources for this dissertation research. This research was
conducted conjointly with a child pedestrian safety study that examined risk and
modifying factors for children traveling to and from school.
10
The study was
approved both by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board

9
In this study, a school neighborhood refers to a school attendance boundary area. For a parochial
school (i.e., St. Agnes), which does not enroll children from an assigned area, the attendance
boundary of an adjacent public school (i.e., Vermont) was used as a proxy.
10
Funded by the METRANS Transportation center, Tridib Banerjee served as a principal investigator.
Deepak Bahl and JungA Uhm were the study coordinators. This dissertation research also received
funds from the USC urban initiative for the preliminary research activities.

46
and by the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Program Evaluation and Research
Branch Committee on External Research.

Study Sites
Five elementary schools located in the historic USC’s University Park
campus surrounding area were recruited to participate in the study. In collaboration
with USC Civic and Community Relations (USC CCR), the initial contacts for the
recruitment were made to the principals of the elementary schools, currently
involved in the USC CCR’s Kid Watch program. Out of 7 elementary schools in the
program at the time of the research, 5 schools (4 traditional public and1 parochial)
agreed to participate in the study.
11
Figure 4.1 presents the study schools and their
attendance boundaries.
Located in low income minority communities, just a few miles south of
downtown Los Angeles, the study schools enrolled predominantly Hispanic students,
ranging from 77% of student body in Foshay to 97% in Norwood (see Figure 4.2).
Most of students in three public schools (close to and above 90%) were receiving
free or reduced price meals. The service areas of the study school neighborhoods
(i.e., school attendance boundaries) range from 0.55 to 1.09 square miles and their
population densities range from 24.15 to 42.86 persons per acre, much denser than
the City of Los Angeles (13.10 persons per acres). Land use predominantly contains

11
In 2007, the program welcomed two additional elementary schools in to the program, totaling 9
elementary schools and 1 high school. Originally, the study also included one charter school. After
two trials with two classrooms, it was dropped from the study due to very low participation rates
similarly from the two classrooms (only 2 children from each classroom).

47
residential ranging from 78% to 91% of the total land areas, except in Norwood
community where non-residential uses make up over 50% of the area. The study
sites contain access points to two major freeways in and out of downtown LA that
intersect the boundaries of the two school neighborhoods. Most of the study schools,
except Weemes, are located along high traffic arterials or in close distance to
freeways.

Figure 4.1 Study School Neighborhoods

Study Subjects and Recruitment
Through consultation with the school principals and in consideration of the
availability of classroom teachers, a total of six 5
th
grade classrooms from the five
Study
School
School Attendance
Boundary

48

Figure 4.2 Selected Sites and School Characteristics
Foshay Norwood St Agnes Vermont Weemes
Street Network

School

Area 0.55 sq. mi 1.09 sq. mi 0.64 sq. mi 0.64 sq. mi 0.62 sq. mi
Pop. density 27.84 per acre 24.73 per acre 44.02 per acre 44.02 per acre 27.88 per acre
School type Trad. K-12 Trad. K-5 Private K-8 Trad. K-5 Trad. K-5
Total Enroll. 3,533 947 330 1,008 1,240
Hispanic % 77.4% 96.7% 87.6% 90.0% 71.4%
Free/reduced
meal
88.5% 92.9% NA 95.7% 90.2%
Sources) 2000 US Census; Public school data: ed-source 2005-06 school report; private school data: National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA);
Private School Universe Survey data for the 2003-2004 school year
Study School

49
study schools were identified, consisting of 176 child-parent pairs eligible for the
study.
12
To recruit children, written informed parental consent and the assent of the
children were sought prior to the study enrollment and a total of 104 children (59%
participation rate) agreed to participate in the study by returning the signed forms.
Close to 90% of the subjects were Hispanic origin, reflecting a predominance of
Hispanic student population in the study schools. More girls (54%) than boys (46%)
were represented. In addition to consenting to the participation of their child,
participation was also asked of the parents of the children by completing and
returning a survey questionnaire. Eighty-seven parent surveys were returned (49%
response rate). The study didn’t require that a child and his or her parent should
participate together. Thus, the number of subjects in a pair of child and parent
decreased to 81, making a participation rate of 46% in pair.
The study also recruited Kid Watch program volunteers residing in the study
school neighborhoods. The volunteers were asked for their inputs about the issues
pertaining to the safety of neighborhood children walking to school during organized
Kid Watch events (i.e., summer picnic and training sessions). A total of 130
volunteers participated in the study by either partaking in a focus group interview or
completing a survey questionnaire.

12
The study requested multiple class visits which made up of about 2.5 hours of in-class activities.
Thus, the recruitment of classrooms was largely dependent upon the willingness of classroom teachers
and class schedules. The Vermont school was most willing, which two classes volunteered to
participate in the study.

50
Research Procedure and Data Collection
The study was designed to collect data from multilevel- individual, household
and neighborhood. At each level, factors associated with children’s school travel
were collected to examine their association with children walking to and from
school. At the individual level, child-centered research techniques that employed
written, verbal, and visual recording methods provided different yet complimentary
information about children’s insight into school travel and neighborhood
environment. These methods presume that children are capable of forming their own
view of the environment that each child actively experience, interpret, and negotiate
in his or her “daily commerce” with their surroundings. The methods chosen for the
study are built upon a range of participatory methods that have been developed to
elicit children’s perspectives of ‘lived’ experience (see Greene & Hogan, 2005 for
review). Specifically, the study sought to understand children’s image of the
neighborhood and their place feelings and values; examine children’s travel pattern
and experience while traveling to and from school; and determine neighborhood
environmental quality associated with children’s traveling preference. At the
household level, parents’ attitudes toward walking and concerns about their
children’s school travel were examined through parent survey. At the community
level, Kid Watch program volunteers resided in the study sites including parents as
well as non-parents provided overall safety issues pervaded in the neighborhoods
based on their experience in the program. Also, the characteristics of the built and

51
social environment along children’s school travel routes were documented. Details
on procedures and data elements at each level are outlined below.
Child-centered activities
Three sessions were conducted with the children in their classrooms over a
three weeks period. In the first session all children in a classroom received an
introduction packet, including a study leaflet, parent informed consent form, child
assent form, and parent questionnaire.
13
A unique number marked in a small piece of
colored paper was attached to each packet. This randomly assigned number was used
as an identifier, which the child-parent pair received the same number. The child and
parent participants were asked to use the assigned number instead of their names in
all the research materials. Child-friendly leaflets, clearly written in simple language
with graphic images, were used to explain the study and to inform children how they
might participate in different activities (see Figure 4.3). After a verbal introduction to
the study with a reference to the leaflet, the consenting documents were explained to
children (i.e., what the forms were about, who would need to sign them where, and
why).
In addition to a parental consent, the study sought children’s own decision
about participating in the study by asking them to sign or put their name on the
assent form if they want to take a part in the study. Some of the children signed the
assent form during the introduction session, showing a great interest and willingness

13
Materials for parents were written in English and then later translated into Spanish. Parents received
the both versions.

52
to participate in the study. Only one showed disinterest by asking about not signing
the assent form. Children were then asked to take home the packet, discuss about the
study with their parents, and return the signed and completed forms to their teacher
by the following session, if they and/or their parents agreed to participate in the
study.
Figure 4.3 Child-friendly Leaflet to Introduce the Research

53
The second session which lasted about an hour began with collecting the
signed consenting documents and completed parent questionnaires to identify study
participants. All children who agreed to participate in the study with their parents’
consents received a 14 ″ X 17 ″ sheet of paper and a 2B pencil. The children were then
asked to draw a map of the neighborhood around the school and show in the map
everything they thought important to them. A cognitive or mental map is an internal
representation of the environment, which includes knowledge about and attitudes
towards the environment (Downs & Stea, 1973). A cognitive mapping technique has
been a valuable tool in understanding how children construct and understand their
environment (e.g., Halseth & Doddridge, 2000; Ladd, 1970; Lynch, 1977; Morrow,
2001). To enable children to express freely without any pre-set ideas other than their
own, no guidelines were provided as to how to draw or what types of elements
would be expected. Some children were however hesitant because they were unsure
of their drawing skills. So children were assured that no special skills would be
expected and their drawings were not to be graded.
After the children completed the cognitive mapping task, each child received
an aerial map of the school neighborhood with all the street names clearly shown.
Children were first asked to locate their school and home on the map. The majority
of the children were able to locate the two reference sites with street names.
Assistance was given to those who had trouble reading the aerial view. Children then
were asked to draw their normal route(s) to and from school with a colored pen,
using arrows to mark directions. A total of 143 school travel routes (1.38 routes

54
per child on average) were recorded, irrespective of mode of travel. Next, children
were asked to identify places that they liked, disliked, or felt unsafe on the map with
numeric numbers and write brief comments about each place on the back of the map
describing why they liked, disliked, or felt unsafe about the places. This place
mapping exercise was intended to elicit place-based information about children’s
environmental perception and values. Children were able to identify a total of 399
places (2.84 places per child in average). Overall, places that children liked were
most frequently mentioned (67%), followed by disliked (24%) and unsafe places
(9%), in respective order. All of the child respondents identified places were later
visited and photographed by the author.
14

Following the place mapping exercise, each child received a travel/activity
diary, developed to collect data on children’s daily travel pattern and activities (see
Figure 4.4).
15
After a brief introduction on how to complete the diary, the children
were asked to take home the diary, record what they did (not including activities at
school), how they traveled, and with whom for 24-hour time over a three day period
(2 weekdays and 1 weekend), and return the completed diary to a researcher by the
following session. Seventy five diaries were returned, which made a return rate

14
Initially, the methodology was developed to distribute a disposable camera to each child so children
can document their environments en route to and from school. However, it was rejected by the USC
IRB on the basis of endangering children (i.e., possibility of causing unnecessary distractions and
being exposed to social and traffic dangers, etc.).
15
The diary used in this study was adopted from the one used in the Children’s Activities, Perceptions
and Behaviour in the Local Environment (CAPABLE) project with a minor change in format.
Developed by researchers from the University of London, the original version was found valuable in
collecting rich data on children’s travel and activity patterns (see Mackett, Lucas, Paskins, & Turbin,
2005).

55
Figure 4.4 Sample Template of Travel and Activity Diary

56
of 72%. However, almost half of them were incomplete, either not recording for
three days or including only activities occurred at schools during school hours (i.e.,
learning math, having lunch, chatting with friends, etc.). After eliminating
incomplete sets, only 38 diaries (37%) remained valid for analysis, which raised a
concern about the representativeness and generalizability of the collected data.
Hence it was not included in the analysis of results. In retrospect, this problematic
result occurred because this part of exercise was not able to capture the children’s
full attention as it was introduced during the last minutes of the session, which was
somewhat hurried to meet the given time frame. Furthermore, the children were
usually eager to take a break after the drawing and mapping exercises.
In the third and last session, the children first completed a survey
questionnaire, developed to examine: (a) children’s self report of their current travel
mode to and from school; (b) experience of school journey (i.e., encountered
barriers); (c) environmental risk perceptions en route to school; and (d) preference
for mode of travel to and from school (see Appendix A). Questions included items
comparable to those from the parent survey questionnaire as to examine
dis(similarities) in the responses of the children and their parents. A total of 100
questionnaires were completed.
16
Next, the photos of the child identified places from
the previous session were presented to the children in PowerPont slides. Each slide
contained up to 4 photos with location marked on a map and in its title (see Figure

16
For the activities in the third session, the study missed 4 children. They were either absent on the
day of the session or in a different classroom for other lessons.

57
4.5). An evaluation form made up of a bi-polar scale of safe-unsafe was distributed
to the children and they were asked to select one after examining the photos in each
slide. Children rated each slide based on either/both their experiences with the place
or/and visual qualities of the scenes.

Figure 4.5 Sample Slide from the Photo Evaluation Activity

After the photo evaluation activity, children were free to talk about their ideal
neighborhood based on four categories-‘things they don’t have now but would like to
have’, ‘things they would like to get rid of, ‘things that would make their
neighborhood safer’, and ‘things that would make their walking more enjoyable’. A
list of items was noted on a board as children discussed the issues. This exercise was
intended to understand children’s perceived ‘place dissonance’, indicating the extent
to which the current environment would meet the needs and expectations of children
(Banerjee & Baer, 1984). Although children spoke of things mostly for fun in the

58
beginning (i.e., theme parks, amusement parks, game store, etc.), children’s list in
the end reflected their ability to think critically for environmental quality and
neighborhood safety, demonstrating civic mindedness. All the child participants
received school supplies (i.e., a spiral notebook, highlighter, etc.) at the end of the
third session as incentives for their participation.
Parent survey
Parent questionnaires were distributed to all children in the participating
classrooms to bring home to their parents for completion (see Appendix B).
17

Parents returned the completed questionnaires to school via their children. The
parent survey was intended to elicit factors likely to influence parental decision
about their child’s transportation to school, including socio-economic and
demographic information. The questions included: (a) parents’ perception about
neighborhood environments; (b) attitudes and concerns about children walking to or
from school; (c) their own travel behavior; and (d) their level of social engagement.
Overall, the Vermont parents were accounted for close to a half of the respondents
with significantly high response rate (76.8%). Parents’ responses represented more
girls than boys (56.3% and 43.7%, respectively).
Focus group interview
A research effort with the Kid Watch volunteers was initially planned as a
focus group interview. A sign-up table was set up at the annual Kid Watch picnic

17
The questionnaire used in the study was adopted from a parent survey questionnaire developed for
evaluating the California SR2S program by researchers at the University of California, Irvine. Slight
modifications were made from the original questionnaire (see McMillan et al., 2006 for original
version) and pilot tested for its validity.

59
held in a park on USC campus to recruit participants for a 30 minutes sit down
interview in a classroom during the picnic event. Although many people signed up
for an interview, bringing them to the interview room in the middle of festivity
turned out somewhat problematic. Eight volunteers, some with their children, joined
a structured focus group interview with nine open ended questions. The entire
interview was conducted in Spanish by a graduate student assistant and later
transcribed in English. Additional efforts were made four months later to reach the
Kid Watch volunteers with a slight adjustment in method. After a brief presentation
about the study, a survey questionnaire with open ended questions structured for the
focus group interview was distributed to the volunteers during their training sessions.
The questionnaire was prepared both in English and Spanish (see Appendix C). They
were asked to return the completed questionnaire by the end of the session. A total of
122 questionnaires were returned.
Built Environment measure
Built environment characteristics were measured by a variety of techniques,
including analysis of geographic information system database, hard-copy maps,
aerial photographs, and data collected from site visits. Appendix D summarizes the
characteristics of the built environment measures. The study school communities
were first divided into 0.25 x 0.25 mile grid cell and urban form measures were
collected from the cells that contained the school travel routes of the child
participants. In total, 43 grid cells were measured on four broad themes suggested to
influence walking –land use density and diversity, street pattern, pedestrian

60
infrastructure, and traffic environment- across the four school neighborhoods.
Selected pedestrian infrastructure and design elements that required field
observations were measured at the level of street segments along the school routes
through windshield survey (see Appendix E for a list of observed items and coding
methods). A total of 239 street segments were measured that ranged from 39 to 100
segments per school neighborhood. A team of two (each person observing one side
of the segment), excluding the driver, recorded elements on 12 design and pedestrian
environment quality items. The field survey took approximately 5 afternoon hours
over two days.

Data Analysis
Data analysis for this dissertation research is divided into two main parts, all
of which were examined in association with children’s current school travel mode.
The quantifiable data were coded and analyzed, using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows, version 13.0. For the first part, descriptive
statistics were used to characterize the child participants and the proportions of
children using each mode of transportation to and from school (i.e., walk or bike, or
motorized). A number of bivariate correlational analysis techniques were conducted
(i.e., Pearson’s chi square, Student’s independent t-test, Analysis of Variance,
Spearman rank order correlation, and Point biserial correlation) to examine
association between factors at each level and school travel mode. In addition,
children’s perceived risks associated with their school journeys and their needs

61
and concerns for safe and active travel to school were analyzed and compared with
their parents’ perceptions. This part also includes the results of content analysis of
focus group survey data that revealed the safety issues pervaded in the locality and
social norms regarding parenting.
The second part largely consists of qualitative assessments of the materials
collected from the child participants (i.e., cognitive maps, place mapping, photo
evaluation, and discussion), analyzing the collective image of neighborhood
perceived by children. Mapping and place elements were also quantified and
compared between schools, travel groups (active vs. passive), and gender to examine
the relationship between children’s perception of neighborhood environments and
walking by similar bivariate correlational techniques used in the first part. The list of
child generated environmental values and preferences were grouped into setting
deprivation and aggravation that together measured the degree and intensity of
perceived ‘dissonance’ of place for walking around the neighborhood and to school.

62
Chapter 5
Factors Associated with Active Commuting to and from School
The conceptual framework presented in chapter 3 suggests that the propensity
of children to actively travel to or from school is a function of negotiation between
children, parents, and the environment within the multilevel contexts in which an
individual child is situated. As previous studies have shown, children’s walking to
school appears to involve not only functional or social resources, but also
intrapersonal or perceptual attributes.
This chapter provides information on factors associated with school travel,
especially focusing on barriers to or attractors of walking to or from school at the
individual, household, and neighborhood level. Specifically, the analysis focuses on
children’s experience and perception as well as their preference for school journey,
in comparison with adult parents’ needs and concerns. It aims to inform current
discussion about school travel by providing insight into children’s environmental
needs for safe and active school journey. The following presents the findings from
descriptive and correlational analysis of the data collected from both children and
their parents across the five schools, mainly through survey questionnaires.

Background Characteristics
Table 5.1 summarizes demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the
children stratified by school. This specific data was collected from the parent survey,
which represented 83.7% of the child participants. Parents’ responses represented

63
more girls (54.0%) than boys, especially at the Foshay School that had nearly 90% of
parents providing information for their daughters. The majority of the children were
living with both parents or one parent and an unrelated adult (66.7%) and nearly 29%
of the children were living in single-parent households. The Norwood School had the
largest percentage of single parent students along with the Foshay and the Weemes
(33.3% each) and also had the largest percentage of students living with siblings in
the family (73.3%). Overall, approximately 56% of the children were living in
households with more than one child under age 16.
Nearly one third of children whose parents returned the survey were from
low income families earning less than $15,000 per year on average (31%), which is
significantly lower than the average annual household income of $25,697 for the
population living within the study school attendance boundary areas.
18
An additional
39% reported to have an average annual household income between $15,000 and
$35,000. The St. Agnes School had the highest rate of students living in families
earning less than $35,000 per year (81.9%). Despite the predominance of low to
modest income households, car ownership was quite common among the study
participants. Only 8% of the children were living without a car, of which nearly one
in five children at the Weemes School had no access to a private vehicle at home.

18
According to the 2000 US Census this figure was also much lower than the median household
income in the City of Los Angeles ($36,687) and in LA County ($42,189).

64
Table 5.1 Child Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics (in percentage)

†
Information on the parent who completed the survey
Schools
Foshay Norwood St. Agnes Vermont Weemes Total
Characteristics n=9 n=15 n=11 n=43 n=9 n=87
Female (Child) 88.9 40.0 61.5 56.4 55.6 54.0
Living with both parents (or a parent and an
unrelated adult)
66.7 53.4 81.8 67.5 66.7 66.7
Living with a single parent 33.3 33.3 18.2 27.9 33.3 28.7
missing 0.0 13.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.6
Siblings in a family (under age 16) 55.6 73.3 36.4 58.1 44.5 56.3
missing 0.0 20.0 36.4 32.6 33.3 27.6
Median household income less than $15,000 44.4 26.7 45.5 30.2 11.1 31.0
Income between $15,000-35,000 33.3 26.7 36.4 46.5 33.3 39.1
missing 11.1 13.3 0.0 9.3 44.4 12.6
Living without a car 0.0 13.3 9.1 4.7 22.2 8.0
missing 0.0 20.0 9.1 16.3 11.1 13.8
Parent born outside the United State
†
22.2 80.0 54.5 69.8 44.4 62.1
missing 22.2 6.7 9.1 14.0 11.1 12.6
Parent completed high school or less
†
44.4 66.7 54.6 72.1 77.7 73.4
missing 0.0 13.3 9.1 9.3 11.1 9.2
Lived in the neighborhood more than 10 years 80.0 66.6 100.0 75.8 88.9 71.0
missing 0.0 6.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 3.4

65
Over 62% of the children had one parent born outside the United States. The
Norwood School had a predominantly high proportion of children whose parents
were foreign born (80%). The majority of parents who filled out the survey reported
completing high school or less across the schools, except at the Foshay School that
had the lowest percentage of parents who completed high school or less (44.4%).
When the length of residency is considered, the majority of children across the
schools have been living in their current neighborhoods for more than 10 years,
basically all their lives.

School Travel Pattern
Children’s normal school travel pattern was elicited from the child survey.
19

Riding as passenger in a private vehicle was the primary mode for the sample
children to travel to school. When asked about how they travel to school, 65% of the
children reported that they are driven to school either alone or with other children
(Table 5.2). Approximately 35% of the children indicated traveling on foot or by
bike most days for the trip to school. Motorized travel was the most popular means
for the trip to school across all the study schools as well.

19
Information about a child’s school travel mode was also collected from the parent survey. An
agreement level between the classifications from the child questionnaire and those from the parent
questionnaire was 87% for the trip to school and 78% for the trip from school with Cohen’s kappa
=0.72 and 0.56, respectively, suggesting a fair to good agreement (see Pett, 1997, p.242). Thus the
use of children’s report was considered acceptable.

66
Table 5.2 Normal Mode of Travel to School by School (in frequency)
Schools
Foshay Norwood St. Agnes Vermont Weemes Total
Mode n=9 n=30 n=13 n=39 n=9 n=100
Walk/bike 3 (33) 13 (43) 5 (38) 13 (33) 1 (11) 35 (35)
Motorized 6 (67) 17 (57) 8 (62) 26 (67) 8 (89) 65 (65)
Total 9 (100) 30 (100) 13 (100) 39 (100) 9 (100) 100 (100)
Column percentage in parenthesis

As expected, children walked or biked most days at a higher rate on the trip
home (48%), while the rate of using motorized means decreased from 65% to 52%
for the trip from school (Table 5.3). This increased rate of walking is probably linked
to the unavailability of parents to drive them home in mid-afternoon, often having
conflicts with their work schedules. It might also because children prefer to be driven
in the morning to arrive on time for class, or to enjoy extra morning hours with
friends in a classroom. Overall, the Weemes children reported the lowest rate of
walking for both trip to and from school (11% and 22%, respectively). The result of
the Fisher’s exact test, however, revealed no significant differences among the study
schools in travel mode to and from school, p=.52 to school and p=.24 from school.

Table 5.3 Normal Mode of Travel from School for Each School (in frequency)
Schools
Foshay Norwood St. Agnes Vermont Weemes Total
Mode n=9 n=30 n=13 n=39 n=9 n=100
Walk/bike 3 (33) 18 (60) 5 (38) 20 (51) 2 (22) 48 (48)
Motorized 6 (67) 12 (40) 8 (62) 19 (49) 7 (78) 52 (52)
Total 9 (100) 30 (100) 13 (100) 39 (100) 9 (100) 100 (100)
Column percentage in parenthesis

67
When traveling on foot, over 60% of the children were escorted to school by
an adult (including parents or other adults not from the household) and to a lesser
extent from school (51.4%) (Table 5.4). Approximately 18% of the children were
accompanied by other minors, traveling either with their sisters or brothers or with
friends. An additional 18% of the children walked alone to school. For the trip from
school, children were more likely to travel with siblings or friends (33%) in the
absence of an adult companion, which was consistent with the lower rates of children
driven for this trip.

Table 5.4 Children’s Travel Companions When Walking to and from School
To school (n=64)
†
From School (n=70)
†

Parent or other adults 60.7% 51.4%
Siblings or friends 18.1% 32.9%
Alone 18.0% 10.0%
Two or more of the above 3.3% 5.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0%

†
n excluded those who answered that they never walked to/from school

Child, Household, and Neighborhood Factors
In order to understand factors associated with active commuting to and from
school, bivariate analyses were conducted to examine relationship between school
travel mode and the individual (child), household, and neighborhood level factors
likely to influence travel mode choice for the school trip.
Child characteristics
More girls from the sample children actively traveled to and from school than
did boys (38.2% vs. 31.1% to school and 58.2% vs. 35.6% from school) (Table 5.5).

68
Especially, significantly more girls walked or biked most days than boys for the trip
from school, X
2
(1, N=100) =5.08, p<.05. It may partially confirm Valentines’
(1997a) observations that girls are perceived to have more self control than boys and
thus are more allowed to walk, especially for the trip from school when parents are
less available to pick up their child. It is however premature to conclude when other
factors (i.e., parents’ own travel activity or attitudes, a child’s perception, household
resources, environmental attributes, etc.) may as well interact with a child’s gender
in determining school travel mode.

Table 5.5 School Travel Mode by Gender (in percentage)
Gender
Girls (n=55) Boys(n=45) Total (n=100)
Mode T F T F T F
Walk/bike 38.2 58.2 31.1 35.6 35.0 48.0
Motorized 61.8 41.8 68.9 64.4 65.0 52.0
Total 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0
T= to school, F= from school

Overall, walking to or from school was perceived as safe by about 54 % of
the sample children, while 41% of them responded as unsafe (Figure 5.1).
Especially, a large proportion of children at the Norwood school (67%), which had
the highest rate of children walking from school, felt walking as safe way to travel to
school, whereas the Weemes with the lowest rates of children walking to and from
school had the largest proportion of children reporting unsafe to walk to school
(56%). As expected, children who perceived walking as safe were more likely to
actively travel to or from school. A higher rate of active commuting to school was

69
found among children who perceived walking as safe (44%), compared to 22% of
those who perceived otherwise walked to school (Table 5.6). This was found true for
the trip from school as well (i.e., 57% vs. 39%). However, the relationship was found
significant only in the case of the trip to school [X
2
(1, N=95) =5.20, p<.05],
especially among girls. Although higher rates of walking were observed for both
girls and boys who perceived walking as safe, interaction between safety perception
and walking was found significant only among girls, [X
2
(1, N=53) =5.84, p<.05] to
school and [X
2
(1, N=53) =4.32, p=.05] from school.

Figure 5.1 Child Perceived Safety for Walking to/from School by School

Table 5.6 Percentage of Walking Trip by Gender and Safety Perception

Safety Perception
Safe Unsafe
Gender T F Total T F Total
Girls 55.674.1100.023.146.2100.0
Boys 33.340.7100.020.026.7100.0
Total 44.457.4100.022.039.0100.0
T=to school, F=from school

70
While the perceived safety was positively associated with active commuting
to school, it appeared that children still had to overcome various traffic barriers en
route to school. When asked about things that they have to do when travel to or from
school, children addressed problems associated with crossing the street most
frequently with a good agreement among children from the five schools (Kendall’s
W=.60, p<.01). Almost every other child (46.8%) had to cross a road without a
crossing guard and over 26% of the children reported that they crossed a road with a
heavy traffic or crossed many driveways (Table 5.7).

Table 5.7 Child Encountered Traffic Barriers en route to School (in rank order)
YES

Rank
†

Barriers encountered
Total
(n=94)
Active
(n=50)
Passive
(n=44)
1 Cross a road where there is no
crossing guard
††

46.8% 52.0% 40.9%
2 Cross a road with a heavy traffic 26.6% 24.0% 29.5%
2 Cross many driveways 26.6% 28.0% 25.0%
4 Cross a road where there is no stop
sign or signal
21.3% 26.0% 15.9%
5 Cross a road where cars are moving
fast
19.1% 10.0% 4.5%
6 Cross a road where there is no
crosswalk
16.0% 22.0% 9.1%
7 Walk/bike through an underpass 11.7% 12.0% 11.4%
8 Walk/bike through a parking lot or a
vacant lot
8.5% 6.0% 11.4%
9 Walk/bike in a road because there is
no sidewalk/bicycle path
6.4% 10.0% 4.5%
9 Walk/bike through an alley 6.4% 10.0% 2.3%
†
Ranking is based on the total response
††
This item is the percentage of children who did not mark on ‘cross a road where there is a
crossing guard’

71
When encountered traffic barriers were compared between the children who walked
to and/or from school on most days (‘active’ travelers) and those who walked
occasionally or were normally driven (‘passive’ travelers), higher rates were reported
by active travelers on most of the traffic barriers. Although it is not surprising when
children who walk more, are likely to be more exposed to traffic environments
(either friendly or unfriendly), none of the reported traffic barriers were found
significantly different between the two groups. There was a high level of agreement
between the two travel groups in the ranking of encountered traffic barriers
(Spearman’s r =.78, p<.01).
When asked about the things that made walking to or from school unsafe, the
children most frequently selected ‘fast moving car’ as the top risk factor, followed by
‘many strangers’ (Table 5.8). To these inner city children, social dangers, by and
large, were perceived more as risks for walking than traffic dangers. Immediately
following the top two in the list, factors such as dogs without leash, homeless, and
graffiti ranked high, while most of factors related to traffic dangers ranked relatively
low at the bottom. When examined between the two travel groups (active vs.
passive), a similar trend was observed with a high level of agreement regarding the
ranking of perceived risks (Spearman’s r = .76. p<.01).

72
Table 5.8 Child Perceived Risk Factors for Walking to/from School (in rank order)
Perceived risks YES
o
Rank
o
Rank
a
Rank
p
Fast moving cars 68.8% 1 1 1
Many strangers 66.7% 2 2 1
Dogs without leash 62.5% 3 4 2
Homeless people 62.5% 3 2 1
Graffiti 58.3%5 5 4
Bullies or gangs 52.1% 6 5 7
Tagger 52.1%6 9 5
No crossing guard 49.9% 8 7 8
Difficult to cross a road 39.6% 9 14 8
Drug activities 39.6% 9 7 11
No stop light for pedestrians or bikers 33.3% 11 10 13
Empty street with no people 29.2% 12 15 10
No sidewalk or broken sidewalk 27.1% 13 11 14
No bike path or broken bike path 27.1% 13 15 11
Lights at intersections change before I can cross the street 27.1% 13 11 14
No crosswalk 27.1% 13 11 14
YES
o
= overall percentage, Rank
o
= overall ranking, Rank
a
= ranking by children who are active
travelers, Rank
p
= ranking by children who are passive travelers

Children were also asked to select things that would make walking to school
safer or encourage them to walk to school more. Although potential risks from ‘fast
moving cars’ were identified as most dangerous for walking to or from school,
‘cleaner street’ was most frequently selected by over 69% of the children as an
attractor of walking, followed by ‘no graffiti’ and ‘less crime in my neighborhood’
(66% and 65%, respectively) (Table 5.9). Concerns related to crossing the street also
ranked highly, reflecting the children’s experience of school travel (see Table 5.7).
Especially, children who are passive travelers identified ‘safe places to cross the
road’ as the top attractor of walking to school, while the presence of stores that they
can visit was selected least relevant for them to walk. A chi square analysis revealed
that children who actively traveled to school were more likely to perceive ‘less cars’
(67% vs. 40%) and ‘more stores’ (49% vs. 27%) en route to school as attractors of

73
walking than those who were currently driven to school, X
2
(1, N=97) =6.64 and
4.66, p<.01 and <.05, respectively. This suggests that mixed use development
appeared to be a strong attractor for children who currently walked to school, but not
much for those who did not. Nevertheless, there was a high level of agreement in the
ranking of perceived attractors of walking to school between the two groups of
children (Spearman’s r = .80, p<.01).

Table 5.9 Things that Would Encourage Children to Walk or Bike to School

Perceived attractors YES
o
Rank
o
Rank
a
Rank
p

Cleaner street 69.1% 1 1 2
No graffiti 66.0% 2 2 4
Less crime in my neighborhood 64.9% 3 3 2
Safe places to cross the road 61.9% 4 4 1
Cars moving slower 54.6% 5 7 6
Crossing lights giving more time to cross the street 54.6% 5 4 7
School crossing guard 53.6% 7 8 5
Push buttons to change crossing signs 49.5% 8 9 8
Less cars* 48.5% 9 4 15
No abandoned buildings or vacant lot 46.4% 10 9 12
More crossing light 45.4% 11 11 9
More children to walk with 41.2% 12 13 9
Better street lighting 41.2% 12 13 9
Wider sidewalk 39.2% 14 13 12
More Kid Watch volunteers 36.1% 15 18 14
More bike paths 35.1% 16 13 16
More stores that I can visit** 34.0% 17 11 21
Lighter school bog 33.0% 18 17 17
More shady street 32.0% 19 18 17
More streets with sidewalk 28.9% 20 20 17
More speed bumps 24.7% 21 21 20
YES
o
= overall percentage, Rank
o
= overall ranking, Rank
a
= ranking by children who are active
travelers, Rank
p
= ranking by children who are passive travelers
* p < .01: based on a chi square test
** p <.05: based on a chi square test

In addition to perceived environmental factors, children’s weak and strong
social ties in the neighborhood were measured by the number of people that

74
children reported to know and by the number of friends in the neighborhood that
children reported to play with, respectively.
20
Independent sample t-test revealed that
active travelers reported to know significantly many more people on average, t (87)
=3.27, p<.01 and to have many more friends who can play with in the neighborhood,
t (87) =1.94, p=.053 (Table5.10). While it suggests that children’s social network in
the neighborhood is likely to encourage them to feel more confident in walking,
children traveling on foot for the school journey, in turn, may enhance opportunities
for social engagement in the locality.

Table 5.10 Children’s Weak and Strong Social Ties by School Travel Mode

Social Ties
Weak Strong
Mode Mean SD Mean SD
Active 23.05 24.89 10.30 15.99
Passive 10.16 7.97 5.38 5.18

Children’s preferred mode of transportation for the school trip was examined
as a proxy measure of the extent to which children were content with their current
travel decision.
21
Traveling as passengers in motorized vehicles (including, private
vehicle, car pool, and school bus) remained more preferred by the sample children
for the trip to school (57%), while walking or biking was selected by just over 33 %
of the children (Table 5.11). For the journey from school, a slightly more children

20
Both weak and strong interpersonal ties have been suggested to enhance social cohesion and sense
of community, and thus are likely to encourage walking (see Granovetter, 1973; Lund, 2002;
McMillan & Chavis, 1986). In this study, children’s weak and strong ties are rather loosely defined
as reported number of people who are casual acquaintance and of playmates in the neighborhood.
21
It is noted that this, however, may not fully capture how decision is made within familiar context.

75
wanted to be active (43%) than to be passive travelers (41%). Overall, it was found
that a child’s preferred school travel mode was significantly related to how he or she
currently traveled to and from school. Traveling on foot or by bike to school was
more preferred by children who currently used active mode (45.7%) than those who
were driven for this trip (18.5%), X
2
(1, N=90) =23.54, p<.01. This trend was also
observed for the trip from school (60.1 % vs. 23.1%), X
2
(1, N=84) =10.81, p<.01.

Table 5.11 Children’s Preferred School Travel Mode by Their Current
School Travel Mode (in percentage)

Current mode
Active Motorized Total
Pref. mode T F T F T F
Active 45.760.918.523.133.0 43.0
Motorized 17.4 26.1 75.4 44.657.0 41.0
Both/missing 13.0 17.5 6.2 12.3 10.0 16.0
Total 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0
T= to school, F= from school

It partially confirms that on the one hand, children who are normally driven may
develop more ‘car-centered’ lifestyle than those who actively commute to or from
school. On the other hand, a sizable proportion of children were not content with
how they currently traveled to or from school. For example, nearly 19% of the
children who were driven to school and 23% of those driven from school expressed
desires to walk or bike instead of being driven.
Household characteristics
Table 5.12 lists demographic and socio-economic characteristics that were
found significantly related to a child’s school travel mode from chi square tests.

76
Significantly higher proportions of children living with a single parent and of
children from households with annual income below $35,000 were found to travel
actively both to and from school than those of their counterparts. Children with no or
one car in their households and children whose parents received a high school degree
or less were also significantly associated with active travel only for the trip from
school.

Table 5.12 Selected Household Characteristics and Active School Travel
(in percentage)

Active
b
p-value
Characteristics Total
a
T F T F
Parental availability
Single parent 27.6 52.4 66.7 0.02 0.03
Both parents or (a parent
and an unrelated adult)
72.4 23.6 38.2
Annual household income
c

Less than $35,000 79.5 39.7 55.2 0.02 0.00
$35,000 and more 20.5 6.7 13.3
Car availability
0-1 30.0 42.9 71.4 0.08 0.01
2 or more 70.0 22.4 34.7
Parent education
High school or less 69.9 33.3 54.9 0.61 0.03
Some college or more 30.1 27.3 27.3
Living in the neighborhood
c

Less than 1 year 7.7 83.3 66.7 0.01 0.54
1-5 years 20.5 37.5 43.8
6 years and longer 71.8 23.2 42.9
T= to school, F= from school

a
Row %;
b
Column %

In addition, the length of residence in the neighborhood was found to have a
significant negative relationship with active travel only for the trip to school. A
higher proportion of children who had been living in the neighborhood less than 1

77
year walked to school (83%) than those who had been living longer.
22
There were no
statistically significant differences found between the two modes of travel in terms of
the number of siblings, a parent’s place of birth (foreign vs. U.S.), or a parent’s
membership in any group activities in the neighborhood.
Parents’ attitudes towards and their environmental perceptions of walking to
school were found different between parents who normally drove their child to or
from school and those who did not (Table 5.13). For example, compared with
parents who drove their child to or from school, there was a significantly higher
proportion of parents whose children walked to or from school agreed with the
statements regarding: the importance of walking for the health of a child (95% vs.
72% to school, 91% vs. 67% from school); safety of walking in the neighborhood
(60 % vs. 26% to school, 48% vs. 27% from school); proximity of the school to
home (72% vs. 41% to school, 73% vs. 28% from school); and a child’s preference
for walking (63% vs. 32% to school, 66% vs. 21% from school). A significantly
higher proportion of parents who drove their child to or from school agreed with the
convenience of driving compared to those who did not drive (70% vs. 14% to school,
71% vs. 39% from school). Parents appeared to be highly concerned about strangers
or bullies irrespective of their child’s school travel mode, which was perceived as a
high risk by children as well (cf., Table5.8).

22
This is counterintuitive to a general assumption that people feel more comfortable to navigate on
foot in the environment that they are familiar with. It may due to other confounding factors that were
not adjusted for on this bivariate analysis. Another possibility is that familiarity may not positively
influence the propensity of one to walk in areas where safety and crime related concerns are prevalent,
as was true in this case.

78

Table 5.13 Agreement to the Attitude and Perceptual Statements
by School Travel Modes (in percentage)

School Travel Mode
Active Motorized
Statements (either agree or strongly agree) T F T F
Walking/biking to or from school would be good for my
child’s health *
†

95.0 90.6 71.8 66.7
My neighborhood is safe enough for children to walk/bike
to or from school alone*
60.0 47.8 26.2 26.5
I worry about strangers or bullies in the neighborhood
approaching my child if he or she is walking/biking alone
72.2 79.3 75.5 71.1
The school is close enough for my child to walk or bike*
††
72.2 73.3 40.9 28.1
My child is prepared or old enough to walk or bike to
school
†

30.0 46.4 34.1 22.2
Driving my child to or from school is more convenient or
fits my schedule better**
††

14.3 38.5 70.2 71.4
My child likes to walk or bike to/from school*
††
63.265.5 31.8 20.6
T= to school, F= from school

* p<.05: based on a chi square test to school; ** p<.01: based on a chi square test to school

†
p<.05: based on a chi square test from school;
††
p<.01: based on a chi square test from school

Parents’ agreement on the maturity of a child to walk to school was relatively
low overall, especially for those who drove. Nonetheless, there was a higher
proportion of parents whose children walked from school agreed that their child was
mature enough to walk, compared with those whose children did not walk from
school (46% vs. 22%). Of parental attitudinal factors found to significantly influence
children’s school journey, the convenience of driving was most strongly associated
with travel mode to school (Ø=.48), followed by their perception about neighborhood
safety (Ø=.31). For the trip from school, the strength of association was most strong
for parents’ belief about their child’s preference for walking (Ø=.46), followed by
their perceived school distance (Ø=.45). It suggests that when parents’ attitudes come
into play, parents appear to assign different values for the trip to and from school.

79
It is noted that parents’ perceptions of their neighborhood environments
seemed more negative than those of their children. For example, 54% of the children
reported that their neighborhood was safe for walking to or from school, whereas
only 27% of the parents agreed that their neighborhood was safe enough for their
child to walk to or from school (Table 5.14). When the safety perception was
examined between a child and his or her parent, only 44.3% of the child-parent pairs
shared their neighborhood perception for walking either as safe or unsafe. Overall,
there were no statistically significant relationship found between the child-parent
pair, X
2
(2, N=70) =2.11, p=.35, suggesting that relying on parents’ perceptions of
neighborhood safety may provide an inadequate account of children’s perceptions.

Table 5.14 Parents’ Agreement on the Safety of Neighborhood
by their Child Perception (in percentage)

Child perception
“My neighborhood is safe enough for children to
walk/bike to or from school alone”
Safe Unsafe Total
Agree/Strongly agree 18.6 8.6 27.1
Disagree/Strongly disagree 24.3 25.7 50.0
Neutral 11.411.4 22.9
Total 54.345.7 100.0

Particularly, parents were more concerned about traffic related barriers than
children would normally encounter en route to school. When asked about things that
their child would have to do to walk to school, higher rates were reported by parents

80
on the all traffic barriers, except in the case of sidewalk presence (Table 5.15).
23

Crossing a heavily trafficked road was most reported and concerned barrier both by
children (26.6%) and by parents (35.6%). Especially, a higher proportion of parents
who normally drove their child to school reported this as a likely barrier if their child
were to walk (45% vs. 19%), compared to those who did not, X
2
(1, N=59) =3.89,
p<.05. A higher rate was also reported by parents who normally drove their child
from school on ‘fast moving cars’ (33% vs.10%) than their counterparts, X
2
(1,
N=59) =4.57, p<.05.

Table 5.15 Parent Perceived vs. Child Encountered Traffic Barriers (in percentage)
Parents Children
Traffic barriers YES YES
Cross a road with more than 4 lanes of traffic 35.8 26.6
Walk through unsafe areas or by buildings or activities that
are undesirable (i.e., underpass, dark alley, parking lot or
vacant lot, etc.)
33.9 18.8
Cross a road where there is no stop sign or street signals 32.2 21.3
Walk on the road or cross a road where cars are moving fast 22.0 19.1
Walk on the road because there is no sidewalk 1.7 7.4

While parents perceived that walking through unsafe or undesirable areas would be
the second most likely barrier, it appeared to be less likely experienced by children.
However, it is partly due to the wording such as ‘unsafe’ or ‘undesirable’ in the
parent’s questionnaire prompts a broader reflection on possible barriers that would

23
Items asked to children and to parents slightly varied (see Table 5.5). For example, parent survey
did not include questions about crossing guards and driveways and question about unsafe or
undesirable areas in the parent survey was specified into separate questions (i.e., walk through n
underpass, a parking lot, or an alley) in the survey for children to make it more clear for children to
answer.

81
include not only traffic related but also social risks as well. The level of agreement
between the child-parent pair was less than fair (k<0.40) on each of the individual
traffic barriers, suggesting that parents may not have correct information about actual
traffic barriers that their child faces when walking to or from school.
Parents’ walking behaviors were also found to influence how their child
traveled to or from school. A higher proportion of children whose parents walked
more than a few times a week walked to (42% vs. 21%) and from school (63% vs.
26%) than those whose parents did not normally walk, X
2
(1, N=83) =3.89, p<.05
and X
2
(1, N=83) =11.63, p<.01, respectively. Although parents’ participation in any
neighborhood associations was not found to be an influencing factor, parents’ strong
interpersonal tie was strongly associated with the likelihood of children walking.
Parents of children who actively traveled from school on most days reported to have
significantly more number of friends in the neighborhood on whom they could rely
in the case of a need or emergency on average ( X = 7.04, SD=6.52 vs. X = 3.77,
SD=3.27), compared to those whose children did not walk from school, t (61) =2.58,
p<.05. When parents and children were stratified each by quartiles of reported
number of friends, Spearman’s correlation demonstrated no statistically significant
relation between the parents and the children r
s
(52) = .14, p>.01.
Neighborhood characteristics
Each child’s travel distance between home and school was measured from the
actual routes he or she normally takes drawn on an aerial view map. The majority of
children were able to complete their route between home and school, except in a

82
few instances when their homes were located off the provided base map. Figure 5.2
summarizes the selected characteristics of the children’s travel routes. It should be
noted that children walked or biked much longer distance than a quarter mile,
normally considered as a walking distance appropriate for children. On average,
children walked or biked nearly 0.48 miles in network distance for the trip to school
and those who were driven traveled about 0.61 miles to school.

Figure 5.2 Selected Characteristics of Children’s School Travel Routes (in average)

Travel distance Walked route
School Travel Routes Walked
(mi.)
Driven
(mi.)
Arterial
(%)
Crossing
(times)
Foshay
(n=8)

T =0.81
F =0.81
T =0.74
F =0.76
T =14.3
F =14.3
T =3.00
F =3.00
Norwood
(n=29)

T =0.53
F =0.56
T =0.56
F =0.57
T =19.2
F =22.9
T =4.46
F =4.61
T=to school, F=from school

83
Figure 5.1 Continued
Travel distance Walked route
School Travel Routes Walked Driven Arterial
(%)
Crossing
(times)
St. Agnes
(n=13)

T =0.40
F =0.39
T =0.65
F =0.48
T =78.0
F =86.0
T =5.00
F =5.00
Vermont
(n=39)

T =0.40
F =0.52
T =0.58
F =0.60
T =31.7
F =33.4
T =3.50
F =4.27
Weemes
(n=9)

T =0.86
F =0.76
T =0.63
F =0.61
T =30.0
F =52.5
T =8.00
F =8.00
Total T =0.48
F =0.54
T =0.61
F =0.59
T =32.6
F =34.9
T =4.17
F =4.57
T=to school, F=from school

84
As more children walked or biked on the trip from school, children traveled longer
distance from school on foot or by bicycle (0.54 miles), while children were driven
slightly lesser distance from school (0.59 miles).
As expected, travel distance was significantly inversely related to active
commuting to school (r
pb
= -.22, p<.05), however at a relatively low level (see Pett,
1999, p.251). The proportion of children actively traveled to school decreased as
travel distance was longer than a half mile (Table 5.16). Yet, short distance did not
guarantee that the trip to school would be on foot. For example, nearly 43% of the
children living within a quarter mile and over 56% of those living a quarter mile to a
half mile from school were driven to school. This trend was occurred for the trip
from school as well. Nonetheless, the relationship between active travel and travel
distance was not found significant (r
pb
= -.09, p>.05), suggesting that the influence of
distance on school travel mode may become less salient for the trip from school.

Table 5.16 Travel Mode to and from School by Travel Distance (in percentage)

<¼ mi. ¼-½ mi. ½ -1 mi. > 1 mi.
T F T F T F T F
Active 42.9 33.3 43.2 54.2 28.6 54.1 12.5 40.0
Motorized 42.9 50.0 56.8 45.8 71.4 45.9 87.5 60.0
missing 14.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0 100.0
T=to school, F=from school

It was noted that over 32% of the total street segments that children actively
traveled to school (nearly 35% from school) were along major arterials or collectors
where cars are moving at a fairly high speed throughout the day. Especially, the vast

85
majority of the street segments walked by the St. Agnes children contained two
major arterial roads (i.e., Adams Blvd. and Vermont Ave.) where the school was
located at their intersection. Another potential risk that may face children en route to
school is street crossing. According to the routes drawn by the children, children
would have to cross the street more than four times on average while traveling to or
from school on foot and about 13% of street crossing occurred at arterial or collector
streets. Especially, the Weemes children would have to cross the street most
frequently (8 times), often happened at a major arterial (i.e., Exposition Blvd.) where
children might face added risks from an ongoing construction.
Interestingly, when children walked to or from school, they often did not take
the shortest route between home and school, unlike previous studies normally
presume (e.g., Timperio et al., 2006). Figure 5.3 presents an example of the route
drawn by a boy who indicated to walk about 0.81 miles which was much longer than
the shortest route between his home and the school in network distance (0.45 miles).
Presumably there are various reasons: to avoid heavy trafficked roads or unsafe area,
to walk with friends on the way to or from school, to experience more pleasant
walking environment, and the like. This suggests that the notion of utility
maximization may not adequately explain the complexity of decision associated with
not only walking but also walking routes.

86
Figure 5.3 Example of the Roundabout Travel Route

The line with arrow ( →) was drawn by a child who indicated to take rather
indirect route to walk to and from school. The dotted line ( ---) indicates the
shortest route between his home and school, drawn by the author.

Children’s travel routes were further assessed through the examination of
objective measures and through field observation. Table 5.17 summarizes the
objective characteristics of the routes taken by the children to travel to or from
school, categorized by the land use, street pattern, traffic environments, pedestrian
features, aesthetics, and social milieu (see Appendix D for a detailed information
about an individual measure). The association between the individual environmental
measure and school travel mode was examined by using correlation analysis.

87
Table 5.17 Objective Built and Social Environmental Characteristics of
Children’s School Travel Routes
a

Mean Minimum Maximum
Land use
Net residential density 20.03 2.06 40.88
Land use mix 0.44 0.05 0.67
Retail floor ratio 0.47 0.05 0.79
Street pattern
Average block size 5.86 1.01 9.26
Street connectivity 94.44 10.94 136.25
% street area* 26.68 4.27 34.29
Traffic environments
Traffic capacity 2.72 0.38 3.52
Traffic speed 29.13 4.31 38.38
Transit stop density 3.79 0.17 9.14
Pedestrian features
Streetlight coverage 35.09 4.42 50.40
% street segments with sidewalk width over 5ft 58.58 0.00 84.35
% street segments with pedestrian amenity 22.40 0.00 66.65
% street segments with well maintained sidewalk
†
69.72 13.96 97.90
% street segments with no sidewalk obstruction 85.75 10.21 97.80
% street segments with natural surveillance 56.92 10.83 83.40
Aesthetics
% street segments with no litter 89.12 8.54 100.00
% street segments with no abandoned or vacant lot 83.18 16.67 100.00
% street segments with well maintained buildings 91.88 16.67 100.00
Social milieu
Crime density*
††
14.881.92 23.33
Kid Watch site density
†
30.826.08 61.00
a
Values summarized for the travel routes of 102 children, measured either at the 0.25 x 0.25 mi.
grid cell(items in normal font) or at the street segment level (items in italic) that contained a child’s
travel route; Average number of grid cells assessed = 4.01 (min =1, max.= 8) per individual route;
Average number of street segments assessed=14.02 (min.=2, max.=33) per individual route
*p<.05: point-biserial correlation with travel mode to school
†
p<.05: point-biserial correlation with travel mode from school
††
p<.01: point-biserial correlation with travel mode from school

The results showed that none of the land use, traffic environment, and aesthetics
variables was significantly associated with a child’s school travel mode to or from
school. For the trip to school, only percentage street area (r
pb
= -.21, p<.05) and crime
density (r
pb
= -.22, p<.05) were inversely correlated with active commuting to school,

88
both at a low level. For the trip from school, the number of Kid Watch sites was
positively associated with active commuting from school (r
pb
=.21, p<.05), whereas
sidewalk maintenance (r
pb
= -.21, p<.05) and crime density (r
pb
= -.32, p<.01) were
inversely associated with children walking or biking for this trip. The negative
association between sidewalk maintenance and walking from school is
counterintuitive to a general assumption that well maintained sidewalk conditions
can create a more amenable pedestrian environment with comforts and safety. This
might have occurred because sidewalk maintenance was evaluated only along the
streets that contained the children’s actual travel routes irrespective of their current
travel mode and distance. This can mean, for example, that sidewalk condition of the
routes might not have much relevance to children driven because of long distance or
those whose alternative walking routes had traffic barriers that they were more
concerned about (i.e., fast moving traffic, no pedestrian signals, etc.).
The density of crime along the child’s travel route was the only factor found
to be significantly inversely related to both walking to and from school, which was
also observed in the concerns raised by the Kid Watch volunteers in the study school
neighborhoods during focus group discussions. When asked about major safety
issues in the neighborhood, crime and social incivility predominated the responses
from the volunteers (Table 5.18). The issues related to gangs and drug activities
were most frequently mentioned, particularly during school commuting hours. The
following anecdotal statement exemplifies fears and seriousness of gang-related
crime in this neighborhood;

89
…because I don’t feel safe walking my dogs or just going for a walk with my
kids because it’s very dangerous. There’s no respect for elders, kids nobody,
my son recently got beat up and they stole his ipod. Now he’s afraid he don’t
even want to go to the corner store, because of this incident. He’s only 16 yrs
old and I would hate it for him to join a gang just to feel he has some back up
in case of anything. He said this was an older man in his late 20’s and he also
had gang related tattoos all over his arms.

Table 5.18 Safety Issues in the Study Areas Raised by the Kid Watch Volunteers
Safety issues Frequency
Personal safety Gangs; drug users and dealers; drinking;
vandalism; robbery; street fight; child molesters;
kidnapping; bad people; lack of security in the
street and around the school; smoking; tagging; car
break-ins; crime; racism; lack of police monitoring
81
Traffic safety No light at crosswalk; traffic; fast moving cars;
road crossing;
23
Behavioral Fast driving; no respect for traffic (child); no
respect for stop signs (drivers); irresponsible
parenting (parents)
24

Although less prevalent, dangers associated with crossing the road was most
recognized regarding traffic safety in the neighborhood. In addition, concerns
directed toward behavioral aspects of drivers, children, or parents were often
observed. Especially, social norms about parenting in general and escorting children
in particular were expressed in the form of blaming the parents of children who were
seen walking alone to or from school. Some wrote;

I have many neighbors who spend their whole time indoors which their
children are outside running around the cars kicking the soccer ball. An the
parents are indoors without a care in the world…it something was to happen
to their children it is the parents’ faults for not being aware of what their
children are doing. They rather stay indoors and watching the novela!

90
…there are mothers that should not send their small children to school alone.
If they work, they should ask a neighbor to accompany their kid to school.
However, I have asked some of the kids I have seen walking alone and they
have told me that their mothers are home in the house.

The need to improve social environment was most widely recognized when
responses to a question about things to enhance the safety of children walking to or
from school in the neighborhood were categorized into individual (child), household,
neighborhood (built and social), and institutional recommendations (Table 5.19).
Particularly, more police patrolling and adult monitoring or escorting were most
frequently mentioned. Along with peer pressures for parents to escort their child as a
sign of responsible parenting, children in these neighborhoods appeared to be under
severe behavioral or spatial restrictions.

Table 5.19 Things to Improve the Safety of Children Walking to/from
School in the Neighborhood

Recommendations from the Kid Watch volunteers Frequency
Child Be alert; no running or be careful when crossing the
street; no talking with strangers; no playing on the
street
24
Household More responsible parenting; parent education;
communicating with children; more parent
involvement; education of children
21
Built/traffic
environment
Streetlight; crossing light; stop signs at crossing; speed
bump; more sidewalk; more marked crossing; cleaner
neighborhood; no double parking; less traffic; valet
drop off; crossing guard
19
Social milieu Police patrolling; adult monitoring; more
security/monitoring of the street; adult/parent escorting;
more people helping/watching kids; no graffiti, gangs,
drunken people, dangerous dogs, or vendors; know
your neighborhood kids;
100
Institutional More programs for children; more community meeting;
more volunteers at school
4

91
Summary
Bivariate correlational analyses confirmed that children’s school travel was
influenced by the layers of factors within the context of children, family, and
neighborhood. Particularly, the majority of parental attitudinal and perceptual factors
were significantly associated with how children traveled to and from school, which
appeared to justify focusing attentions on parental values that the majority of
research on children’s travel has continued to rely on. However, when parental
perceptions were compared with those of their child, they did not appear to be in
concordance. Furthermore, children demonstrated a high level of competence in
expressing their knowledge or concerns about environmental risks en route to school.
It suggests that when given the chance, children can provide insightful information
about things that would make their walking to school safe or enjoyable or about
opportunity sets that would enable them to achieve what they value ( walking or not
walking). For this reason, the next chapter is devoted to children’s perceptions of
their neighborhood as they related to school travel, particularly for walking trips.

92
Chapter 6
Children’s Perception of their Neighborhood Environments and Walking
Findings from the previous chapter indicate that children’s perception of their
surrounding environment differ from those of their parents. Children appear to be
very aware of environmental and social risks in the neighborhood and able to
articulate their concerns and needs for safe walking environment. The notion of
walkability as freedom, as previously discussed, involves real opportunities that
place importance on the role of children as active agents in advancing these
opportunities. The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the understanding of
children’s active travel in general and their school journey in particular through
substantive and methodological exploration.
The chapter provides information about sources of ‘(un)freedoms’ perceived
by children through daily transactions with the environment (cf., Moore, 1986) that
may hinder or promote children walking. A range of methods with children allowed
constructing a composite image of their neighborhood environments from different
angles-cognitive, affective, and behavioral image. The chapter hence adds to the
exploration of participatory tools that can provide valuable insights into the role of
children in ongoing discussion about active living and school travel.

Cognitive Image
The child drawn neighborhood maps were coded and analyzed in four
different ways. The items shown in the maps were first tallied under the following

93
categories: paths (i.e., streets, freeways, and alleys); land uses such as residential
(i.e., homes, friends and relatives’ home, etc.), commercial (i.e., markets, shops,
restaurants, etc.), and public facilities (i.e., parks, recreation centers, schools,
churches, hospitals, libraries, etc); auto/traffic features (i.e., traffic signs and signals,
parking lots, cars, etc.); natural elements (i.e., trees, flowers, etc.); and human/social
elements (i.e., neighbors, shoppers, dogs, etc.). All the spatial elements (mainly path
and land use elements) with identifiable labels (i.e., names of streets, shops, parks,
etc.) were then transformed into point locations and plotted on a standard street map.
The size of the “ascribed radius” (cf., Banerjee & Baer, 1987) encompassing all the
points on each map was measured by dividing the distance between the two farthest
points by two.
The qualitative nature of the maps was examined according to the structures
of elements and to the types of territorial definition. Based on the classification
developed by Appleyard (1970) the children’s maps were first sorted into two groups
according to dominant structure used in organizing elements, namely sequential and
spatial, and then further analyzed for the level of sophistication in representing
structural elements. The maps were also evaluated on their territorial definition.
Maps indicating boundedness were coded as ‘closed’ and those lacking territorial
definition were coded as ‘open’.
Composition of elements
The composition of environmental information represented on the maps –
density, diversity, and distribution of elements- revealed both consistencies as well

94
as variations across the five schools as shown in Table 6.1. The richness of
information was most reflected on the maps drawn by children from the Norwood
( X =20.2, SD=18.0) and the Foshay ( X =20.7, SD=14.4), which showed much higher
mean numbers of elements than the overall mean ( X =15.8, SD=12.8). A strong
representation of land use elements was consistently shown across the
neighborhoods. Within various land use elements residential use was by far the most
dominant in all maps as expected (Figure 6.1). In addition, a strong influence of
commercial facilities (26.4%) was also noted throughout, more frequently depicted
than public facilities (19.5%) including commonly believed to be important child
destinations such as playgrounds and parks. It may be explained by a sheer
dominance of commercial presence compared to the number of public facilities in
the areas. However, it may as well highlight the relevance of such commercial spaces
as strong anchors that transcend the traditional child-adult boundary in terms of
spatial designations.
24

24
Sibley (1995) suggests that the urban landscape of childhood is an outcome of ‘purification’ process
that is adults’ attempt to dominate or control over the process of growing up through the construction
of socio-spatial boundaries. As a result, children are confined or ‘insulated’ to a few ‘islands’ where
their daily activities are commenced under the gaze of adults (Zeiher, 2003). In this respect, public
spaces, including pseudo ones (i.e., shopping mall or plaza) have become contested terrains between
‘out-of-place’ children and adults (see e.g., Mattews, Taylor, Percy-Smith, & Limb, 2000).

95

Table 6.1 Distribution of Elements Depicted on the Maps by Schools

Schools
Foshay
(n=9)
Norwood
(n=29)
St. Agnes
(n=13)
Vermont
(n=43)
Weemes
(n=9)
TOTAL
(n=103)
Categories
X
%
X
%
X
%
X
%
X
%
X
%
Land use 12.8 62 9.8 48 7.9 57 7.7 57 5.4 47 8.5 54
Path 4.9 24 4.1 20 3.3 26 3.3 25 2.0 17 3.6 23
Auto amenities 1.3 6 3.8 19 1.8 14 1.5 10 1.6 13 2.1 13
Nature 1.7 81.3 60.3 20.7 61.2 101.0 6
Human/social 0.0 0 1.2 6 0.1 1 0.3 2 1.4 10 0.6 4
TOTAL 20.7 100 20.2 100 13.3 100 13.5 100 11.7 100 15.8 100

96
26.38%
19.50%
12.04%
42.09%
RE SI D E NT I AL CO M M E RC I AL PU B LI C OT H E R
Figure 6.1 Distribution of Land Use Elements Depicted on the Maps

A strong sense of path, mostly of auto oriented, was also reflected, ranging
from 17% to 25% of all elements shown in the maps. In addition, many of the
children drew functional spaces intended for automobile uses (i.e., parking lots, gas
stations, car wash, etc.) as well as traffic control features (i.e., traffic lights and
signals, road signs, etc.). Some of them made great efforts in articulating details of
traffic environment with number of lanes, signs, and movement and location of cars,
reflecting overwhelming influence of automobile in the lives of these children (see
Figure 6.2). The influence of autocentric culture seemed particularly strong among
children from the Norwood whose maps contained by far the most auto/traffic
features (19%). The natural features were mainly contained street trees, considering
mostly built up characteristics of these areas. The social features in the
neighborhoods were scarcely mentioned, except on the maps of the Weemes (10%)
whose children seemed relatively mindful of social milieu in the locality. The result
of one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed, however, no significant

97
differences between the schools on any individual categories depicted on the maps,
including the total elements.

Figure 6.2 Example of Maps Reflecting Autocentric Environments

Prominent features of the map on the top include traffic lanes, stop signs, traffic lights,
parked and moving cars, and crosswalk. The map on the bottom was shown an arterial
road exaggerated with emphasis on automobiles.

98
The maps were also analyzed to examine if the gender of a child and school
travel mode affected the composition of elements. Table 6.2 presents the means
separated by gender and school travel mode (active vs. passive). A two way ANOVA
found no main effects of gender or travel mode and no interaction was found
between the two either. Despite the lack of statistical significance, it should be noted
that passive travelers consistently drew many more elements across all categories
except on for human/social, compared to those who did not. Especially, their maps
contained more auto related features ( X =3.1, SD=7.3) as expected than did active
travelers ( X =1.3, SD=2.0). This suggests that while being driven might expand
children’s experiential geographies in the locality reflecting a strong influence of
auto-centric culture, children by being on foot appeared to be more aware of social
features.

Table 6.2 Distribution of Elements Depicted on the Map by Gender
and School Travel Mode (in average)

Gender
Boys (n=45) Girls (n=56) TOTAL (n=101)
Categories A P T A P T A P T
Land use 8.30 7.96 8.11 8.32 10.18 9.05 8.31 9.00 8.63
Path 4.00 3.243.583.154.05 3.503.46 3.62 3.53
Auto amenities 2.25 4.28 3.38 0.76 1.77 1.16 1.31 3.11 2.15
Nature 0.05 2.041.160.880.91 0.890.57 1.51 1.01
Human/social 0.50 0.64 0.58 0.91 0.18 0.63 0.76 0.43 0.60
TOTAL 15.20 18.4817.0214.0917.27 15.3414.50 17.91 16.09
A=active travelers; P= passive travelers; T=total

The consideration of gender, however, appeared to change the previously
observed relationship, particularly among boys. For example, boys who actively

99
traveled to and from school drew more elements of land use and path items than their
counterparts, while social items were less frequently depicted. Overall, boys who
were normally driven to and from school were able to represent the densest
information about their neighborhood, ( X =18.5, SD=17.1), whereas girls who
walked to and from school represented the least amount of information ( X =14.1,
SD=13.9).
Ascribed range and territorial definition
Nearly two fifth of the maps failed to provide information that could locate
spatial elements on a street map. Of the rest, the analysis of variance revealed a
significant difference in the size of ascribed range among the five schools, F
(4, 62)

=2.80, p<.05. The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 6.3. Post
hoc comparisons using the Tukey’s HSD test revealed that the Norwood children ( X
= 0.32) represented significantly larger ascribed range on average than the Vermont
children ( X = 0.14), p<.05. As children drew a map of school neighborhood, this
might be partly explained by differences in the size of school attendance boundary
area, which the Norwood school serves much larger area than the Vermont school.
25

Table 6.3 Mean Size of Ascribed Range by Schools (mile)

Schools

Range
Foshay
(n=4)
Norwood
(n=10)
St Agnes
(n=13)
Vermont
(n=31)
Weemes
(n=5)
TOTAL
(n=53)
X
0.27 0.32 0.12 0.14 0.26 0.18
SD 0.12 0.29 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.18

25
The significance of difference across the school was indeed disappeared when ascribed ranges were
adjusted for the size of school attendance boundary area.

100
The ascribed range was also examined by gender and school travel mode
(Table 6.4). A two-way ANOVA found no significant main effects of gender or
travel mode, where the differences between travel groups and between gender groups
were minimal. No significant interaction was found between the two either. Yet,
being driven appeared to be associated with more extended range for boys, whereas
opposite was true for girls. Overall, the study participants showed their neighborhood
area as much smaller than the one circumscribed by a quarter mile radius, which may
reflect highly restricted spatial interactions and opportunities that appeared to shape
lived experience of these inner city children.

Table 6.4 Mean Size of Ascribed Range by Gender and Travel mode (mile)
Gender
Boys (n=25) Girls (n=38) TOTAL (n=63)
A P T A P T A P T
X
0.14 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.18
SD 0.10 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.160.20 0.18
A=active travelers; P= passive travelers; T=total

When territorial definition was considered, nearly 90% of the maps were
easily sorted into either ‘open’ or ‘closed’ (see Figure 6.3). The remaining maps that
were rather unclear were sorted in-between the two categories as either ‘nearly open’
or ‘nearly closed’. Overall, over 83 % of the maps were classified as open/nearly
open with no clear territorial boundedness (Table 6.5).

101

Figure 6.3 Example of a “Closed” (top) and an “Open” (bottom) Map

The closed map on the top presented the school as a center of a “defended neighborhood”
(cf., Suttles, 1972), whereas the open map below presented the neighborhood as the network
of streets where there was no sense of entering into or exiting from. It is rather flows of
movement between home and school.

102

Table 6.5 Territorial Definitions by School, Gender and Travel Mode (in percentage)
School Gender Travel mode
Definition TOTAL F N S V W Boys Girls Active Passive
Open/nearly open 83.5 55.6 82.8 100.0 83.0 44.4 88.4 81.8 90.7 76.6
Closed/nearly closed 16.5 44.4 17.2 0.0 7.0 55.6 11.6 18.9 9.3 23.4
TOTAL 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0100.0100.0100.0
F=Foshay; N=Norwood; S=St. Agnes; V=Vermont; W=Weemes

103
Especially, the maps drawn by the private school children (St. Agnes) was
significantly more likely to contain ‘open’ maps that a number of landmarks was
located sporadically along the street network with no definite boundaries than those
drawn by the public school children (p<.001, Fisher’s exact test). A possible reason
for this can be elicited from the nature of private school that students are likely to
come from further distance than those attending public school with preset attendance
area. Thus they may have a less clear sense of territorial image about school
neighborhood. However, also a high level of openness observed among the children
attending the adjacent school (Vermont) suggests that environmental or personal
factors among others might also affect how children conceptualize their
neighborhood in respect of territorial definition.
For example, a slightly more boys (88.4%) appeared to represent no clear
boundedness in the spatial image of their neighborhood than did girls (81.8%),
although difference between them was not found significant. In addition, a higher
rate of open maps was observed in those drawn by children who actively traveled to
and from school (90.7%), compared to those being driven (76.6%). The influence of
travel mode was found at the margin of statistical significance, X
2
(1, N=101) =3.77,
p=.052. This suggests that automobility tends to influence children’s territorial image
probably connected by a strong sense of paths mainly for car use where either
entering into or exiting from an area is only noted with street sings or road signals.

104
Mapping style
Spatial orientation was represented by nearly half of the maps that showed
connections between spatial parts as incidental or secondary, while the rest depicted
sequential orientation that connection itself was prominent (see Figure 6.4). Table
6.6 summarizes structural styles stratified by school, travel mode, and gender.

Table 6.6 Mapping Style by School, Gender and Travel mode (in percentage)
School Gender Travel mode
TOTAL F N S V W Boys Girls A P
Spa. 48.5 55.6 55.2 84.6 30.2 55.6 55.8 45.3 44.4 53.2
Seq. 51.5 44.4 44.8 15.4 69.8 44.4 44.2 54.7 55.6 46.8
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
F=Foshay; N=Norwood; S=St. Agnes; V=Vermont; W=Weemes; A=active; P= passive

A higher proportion of the St. Agnes children (84.6%) appeared to perceive
their neighborhood spatially, whereas the Vermont children (69.8%) had more
sequentially oriented mental image than the rest. This difference among schools were
found statistically significant (p<.01, Fisher’s exact test). Interestingly, children from
the two schools that faced each other across the street appeared to develop quite
different structural image of the school neighborhood. The majority of the St. Agnes
maps encompassed only a few surrounding blocks positioned at the school
intersection (53.8%). It is noted that the St. Agnes children showed the most
shrunken territorial range (i.e., 0.12 mile) with no clear linkage to the school
surrounding areas, including their homes.

105

Figure 6.4 Example of a “Spatial” (top) and a “Sequential” (bottom) Map

The maps above showed the most primitive form of spatial and sequential maps mainly
comprised of pictorial representation where elements are scattered or fragmented, which
represented nearly 61% of the maps drawn by children.

106
While it might be linked to a lack of familiarity beyond school surrounding blocks, it
also suggests that private school children might perceive a school neighborhood as a
distinct area with no or limited connection to their everyday lifespace outside of
school, which community of school seems to be separated from community of place.
The results also showed that more boys (55.8%) and children who were normally
driven to and from school (53.2%) presented spatially structured maps. However,
neither gender nor school travel mode was found significantly associated with
children’s structural image of their neighborhood.

Affective Image
Place mapping activities clearly captured children’s positive, negative, and
even risk conscious emotional responses toward their neighborhood. Each child
identified approximately four places on average and a total of 177 different places
were distributed along but not limited to children’s current travel routes. Figure 6.5
presents children’s composite image of affective environments of the five schools.
After adjusting per acre based on the size of school attendance area, an ANOVA
revealed a significant difference among the schools in the total number of places
identified, F
(4,99)
=11.95, p<.01. Tukey post hoc comparisons indicate that the
Norwood maps contained a significantly lower number of places on average
( X =3.03) than the others, except the Foshay; in turn, the mean of the St. Agnes maps
( X =8.65) was statistically greater than that observed in the Vermont maps ( X =5.78).

107
The result of a two way ANOVA indicated no significant main effect of school
travel mode. However, passive travelers ( X =6.29) identified more number of places
on average than did active travelers ( X =5.05), suggesting that the sphere of
environmental knowledge appeared to be more restricted for those who walked to
and from school. The number of places identified yet may not reveal the depth or
intensity of environmental interaction. No significant interaction between school and
travel mode was found either.
Places that children identified as liked, disliked, or dangerous were sorted
into the following six categories in terms of functional characteristics: residential
area or street (including freeway, travel route, intersection, alley and underpass);
shops or restaurants; park or recreational facilities; non-recreational community
facilities; home (including homes of friends or relatives); and other (i.e., construction
site, vacant lot, abandoned building, parents’ work place, etc.). Nearly 40% of the
places were grouped under the residential area and street and the shop and restaurant
marked as the second largest category making 27% of the places. Table 6.7
summarizes the distribution of affective places organized by school and school travel
mode.

108

Figure 6.5 Composite Images of Affective Environments
Foshay (n=9) Norwood (n=30) St. Agnes (n=13)
Affective
Environ

X
5.66 per child/acre 3.03 per child/acre 8.65 per child/acre
SD 2.64 1.30 3.47
Like 75.0% 52.5% 66.7%
Dislike 17.9% 23.2% 11.1%
Unsafe 7.1% 24.2% 22.2%

Like
Dislike
Unsafe

109
Figure 6.5 Continued

Vermont (n=43) Weemes (n=9)
Affective
Environ

X
5.78 per child/acre 8.60 per child/place
SD 3.45 3.22
Like 64.8% 91.7%
Dislike 19.5% 4.2%
Unsafe 15.7% 4.2%
Like
Dislike
Unsafe

110

Table 6.7 Distribution of Affective Places by School and Travel Mode

Places liked (%)

School Travel
Place characteristics Total F N S V W A P
Shops/restaurant 36 24 19 71 39 20 39 36
Parks/rec. facility 14 10 27 0 12 20 13 15
Home 9 19 10 15 3 11 9 8
Non-rec. community facility 20 24 33 15 13 25 20 22
Residential area /street 19 24 8 0 34 16 19 17
Other 204007 1 2
TOTAL 100100 100100100100 100 100

Places disliked (%)

School Travel
Place characteristics Total F N S V W A P
Shops/restaurant 6 20 9 11 0 0 6 6
Parks/rec. facility 10 20 13 11 7 0 8 12
Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-rec. community facility 4 0 9 11 0 0 3 6
Residential area /street 76 60 65 56 90 100 83 70
Other 4041130 0 6
TOTAL 100100 100100100100 100 100

Places felt unsafe (%)
School Travel
Place characteristics Total F N S V W A P
Shops/restaurant 10 0 4 31 4 0 5 18
Parks/rec. facility 13 50 16 6 8 50 14 14
Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-rec. community facility 3 0 0 6 4 0 0 7
Residential area /street 74 50 76 56 84 50 81 61
TOTAL 100100 100100100100 100 100
F=Foshay, N=Norwood, S=St. Agnes, V=Vermont, W=Weemes; A=active travelers; P=passive
travelers

111
Places children like
Children mentioned commercial space most often as their favorite places,
including a variety of stores and restaurants ranging from a small food market near
their homes to a large chain grocery store and a shopping center in the
neighborhoods. This is consistent with increasing role of commercial spaces as a
spatial anchor observed in the children’s cognitive image of neighborhood.
Especially, the Vermont children seemed to enjoy a relatively high presence of
commercial places in the close vicinity of their school, whereas parks and
recreational facilities were least mentioned among theses children. It is in part due to
actual presence or absence of these functional spaces. However, children’s reasons
provided for liking theses places were also closely related to the ‘affordance’ and
quality of places.
For example, places that afforded children with opportunities for various
physical, social, and commercial activities received most votes (70%), followed by
those that were safe (22%) (Figure 6.6).

Figure 6.6 Place Qualities Associated with Children’s Positive Feelings

112
Architectural, aesthetic or design quality was marked as least relevant to children
(1%). It is noticeable that commercial places (mostly food related) seemed to satisfy
the two main qualities that children valued, whereas former childhood places such as
parks and playgrounds were often perceived as unsafe. Aside from enjoying foods
and various things to buy or even look at, children also enjoyed the presence of other
people and occasional chance to bump into friends:
I like because there’s food. Safe because I feel protected because there’s
people I see there

I like the food they make there and I see my friends

These places seemed to provide children with a sense of security as they became
familiar with places and people, developing weak ties with the locality. Children also
felt safe with the presence of informal (cf.., Jane Jacobs’s “eyes on the street”) and
formal surveillance:
I feel safe because I know how it is inside
I like it and feel safe because lots of people know me
I feel safe because it is watched by camera
Children also mentioned their own homes either simply because they lived there or
because they felt personally belonging to immediate social milieu:
I like this place because it’s my house and I think I am always sat there
because all the people around there know me so sometimes when I am alone I
go to their house

Aesthetic or design quality, although least mentioned, was largely associated with
cleanness or natural features:

113
I like that part because there is pretty flowers and no tagging

I like w Adams because the street is so clean and the trees have all there
leaves

Place children dislike or feel unsafe
Residential areas and streets were consistently mentioned most often as
disliked or unsafe places by children. A main group of reasons provided why certain
places were disliked was mostly associated with safety issue (76%) and to a lesser
extent, with visual and auditory qualities such as noise, dirty street, and ugly houses
(20%). When reasons why children felt unsafe were further examined, signs of social
incivilities or social dangers were by far predominated (86%) over perceived traffic
dangers (8%) (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6.7 Place Qualities Associated with Children Feeling Unsafe

The majority of personal safety concerns were largely associated with gang related
activities. Children were very much aware of places where gangs frequently hung out
or that signaled the occurrence of gang-related activities such as graffiti:

114
Unsafe because sometimes there’s gangsters drinking and smoking and there
is also tagging on the floor and the walls

Children were also able to identify crime hot spots in the neighborhood where
violent crimes were known to happen or where they even directly witnessed:
I don’t like Adams street because there’s a lot of violence, brutality,
gangsters, drive by, and murders

I don’t like this place because there is gun shooting at night and police cars

I don’t like these places because I saw a dead body
Fears were not only directly experienced but also generated from indirect sources
such as media coverage:
There is a dog and I heard a girl got raped there that came out of TV
Heard about child molesters from the news
In some places children were torn between excitement and fear. Particularly, children
mentioned their daily struggles in some of the neighborhood parks where their
enjoyment of places was threatened by the presence of risk elements, ranging from
dangerous objects to gang activities:
Like because kids play (but) unsafe because many trash, glass rocks, chips in
sand

I don’t feel safe on Toberman park because there are a lot of gangs
Neighborhood parks and recreational centers were indeed where children’s feelings
were most mixed. When crime and violence were highly perceived, police presence
was often provoked a sense of danger rather than a sense of safety:

115
It is the gas station. There are always police men there. I usually get scared

I don’t like it because one they (police) kept on arresting people for no reason

Streets were also seen as dangerous mainly due to fast moving cars that didn’t stop
for pedestrians and the possibility of getting involved in a car accident:
I dislike that place because the cars always go fast
Sometimes cars don’t stop, and there might be an accident
Table 6.8 below summarizes the children’ risk perceptions categorized by the
characteristics of places.

Table 6.8 Unsafe Areas and Safety Concerns Raised by Children
Place Safety concerns Frequency
Personal
Safety
Residential areas/
Streets
Gangs; strangers; homeless; taggers;
drunken people; skateboarders; shooting;
murder; drive-by; rape; scary house;
gunshot; stray dogs; dirty and dark;
beggars; police presence/arrest
59
Parks/rec. facilities Gangs; homeless; killing; bugs 16
Shops/restaurants Gangs; strangers; homeless people 12
Non rec. community
facilities
Homeless; strangers 4
Other (abandoned
house, construction
site)
Dogs; rape; gangs 3
Road
Safety
Local streets/
intersections
Fast moving cars; reckless driving; traffic;
car crash: short crossing time
8
Freeways Car crash; reckless driving 6

All the child identified places were later visited and photographed by the
author. A total of six sets of PowerPoint slides were thus created with different sets
of neighborhood photos for six participating classes. Figure 6.7 and Figure 6.8 each

116
present the results of photo reaction exercises, which children evaluated the scenes
based on a dichotomous scale of safe/unsafe. The places that children perceived as
the safest were all linked to their formal functions (i.e., school, church, library,
grocery store, or shopping mall) across the classrooms. Freeway underpass and dark
alleys were perceived as the least safe, along with places where children complained
about a bulldog barking whenever they walked nearby.

117

Figure 6.8 The Safest Places by School Classroom
Foshay Norwood St Agnes Vermont1 Vermont2 Weemes
Safe

Rec. center

Church

Residential area

Park/college

Church

Church

Grocery store

School

Church

Church

School

Public library

Commercial center
YES= 88.9% 93.1% 80.0% 100.0% 95.7% 93.1%

118

Figure 6.9 The Least Safe Places by School Classroom

Foshay Norwood St Agnes Vermont1 Vermont2 Weemes
Unsafe

House with a barking
dog

Area with a stray dog

Fwy underpass

Alley

Alley

Alley

Area associated with
crime
YES= 88.9% 82.8% 82.7% 93.7% 95.7% 88.9%

119
Behavioral Image
Group discussions with children further revealed the environment that
children valued or preferred. A good fit between environmental setting and users’
expectation and activities is an important characteristic of a good city, among others
(Lynch, 1981). Unmet expectations are often resulted in frustration, uncertainty, and
even fear. Children in inner city are however likely to suffer from ‘place dissonance’,
that may limit opportunities for the fullest development of children (Banerjee &
Baer, 1984). Children’s environmental values, in this sense, are examined as to the
extent that the neighborhood meets children’s expectations. It was measured by the
presence of things that children would want to get rid of and the absence of things
that they would want to have in the neighborhood. A list of child generated items
was sorted into four categories-environmental items (including urban form and
design, and natural and physical amenities), commercial facilities, social milieu, and
community facilities. Table 6.9 summarizes the result of group discussions.
The things that children wanted to have in their neighborhoods were
relatively evenly distributed between the four categories. The things that children
didn’t want to have in their neighborhoods, however, were largely fallen into
environmental items (47%) and social milieu (40%). The list of items exemplifies a
perceived gap between what children want or do not want and the existing provision
or condition, acted upon children as sources of “unfreedoms”.

120
Table 6.9 Children Identified Place Dissonance
Setting Deprivation
“things to have”
Setting Aggravation
“things to get rid of”
Environ.
Items:

N
d
=31 (26%)/
N
a
=25 (47%)

Safer and cleaner street***
Wider/better/clean sidewalk***
Street lights (brighter)*
Stop, road, or traffic signs***
Slower light change**
More freeways; More parking
Speed bump*; More bike parks**
Bike rack**; More bike lanes*
Bus (free bus pass)**
School buses**; Crosswalk**
Caution signs (for crossing streets)*
More benches**; More trees**
More shade**;Open space
More gardens**; Water fountain**
Art on the wall**; Wet places
Better civilized places
Relaxing places; Car Alarms*
More places to look at**; More houses**
Fun places on the way**; Cleaner house
More construction (to fix)
Dirty street
Traffic/ less traffic around
malls/ at intersection***
Fast driving*
Cars that don’t stop at red lights
Drunken drive; Less cars**
Freeway entrances; Freeways
Unsafe streets; Broken streets
Alleys; Abandoned
building/house
Vacant land/lot
Apartment
Less pollution/air**
Less second-hand smoking**
Graffiti***; Junk yards
Junk/garbage/trash
Sprinklers
Trees (obstructing views)
Broken trees; Abandoned cars
No tagging*; No littering**
Commercial
Facilities:

N
d
=32(26%)/
N
a
=7 (13%)

Burger king, Jack in the box
Chuckee cheese, Home town buffet
Restaurant, Trader joes
Ice cream truck or vendor
Hot dog stand; Candy shop**
Vending machine/healthy foods**
Healthier breakfast while you are
walking to school**
Fabric store, Clothing store
Circuit city, Starbucks, Wall mart
Mall, Comic book store
Toy store/game store; Theme
park/amusement park; (Movie)theater**
Casino, Video arcade
More school supply store
Tattoo parole, Beauty salon
Jewelry store, Pet store
More retail stores***
Fortune teller; Gas station*
Cheaper things
Bars
Liquor store**
Unhealthy foods (fast-food,
junk food, vendors)
Less taco places
Donut cars
Less gun stores**
Ice cream truck that sell drugs

* indicates items valued as things that would make the neighborhoods safer
**indicates items valued as things that would make walking to school more enjoyable
***indicates items valued for both safety and enjoyment of walking

121
Table 6.9 Continued
Setting Deprivation Setting Aggravation
Community
Facilities:

N
d
=31(26%)/
N
a
=0(0%)

After school program*
Daycare*; More schools/college
Library (safer and closer)*
Museums (science center)**
Church*; Religious altars*
More temples; Donation center
Homeless shelter; Animal shelter*
More community centers**
Cultural center; More gyms**
More sports playing fields (soccer field
with grass/baseball field)**
More playhouses for kids
Safer playground (at school)**
More parks/bigger parks**
Skateboard park; Skating rinks
Community garden; Dance complex
Fire department*; Post office
Police station(closer); Highway patrol
Clinic*; Kids hospital (more doctors)
Public bathrooms; Zoo; Fairs
NA
Social
Milieu:

N
d
=27(22%)/
N
a
=21(40%)

More Kid Watch***
More people watching you when you walk
(outside protect)**
More adults on the street*
More parents supervision**
More new people**
Crossing guards***, Safe drivers**
Safer people; More nice people
More English/Spanish speakers
More friends (going to friend’s house)**;
Community meetings*
Walking with friends (or parents)**
Vanpools for after school activities*
More fire fighters*
More cops (who care)***
Police giving tickets to bad drivers*
Public safety*; Military*; Security guards*
; More surveillance cameras*
Better police dogs*; Guard dogs*
Good animals (that don’t attack)*
Dogs to walk with**; More animals More
people who pick up trash**
Crazy people nasty people
Strangers
Bullies**
No killers*
Child molesters
Alcoholics; drunken people**
Robbers; Homeless/ bums**
Less old drivers*
Skate boarders
Less people doing graffiti**
Gangs***; Guns, shooting
Less gang activities**
Drugs (dealers, activities)
Crime
No auto break-ins*
Drive-by; Car racing
Stray dogs (bull dongs; pit
bulls)
Less war*

TOTAL N
d
= 121 N
a
=53

122
When the list of items was examined by the school neighborhoods, the Foshay
children expressed a higher level of place dissonance (7.67 items per child) than the
others (Table 6.10).

Table 6.10 Children Perceived Place Dissonance by School (per child)
School
FoshayNorwoodSt. Agnes Vermont Weemes TOTAL
n 9 30 13 39 9 100
Setting deprivation 5.00 2.97 4.00 2.32 3.44 3.04
Setting aggravation 2.67 1.03 1.62 1.00 1.38 1.32
TOTAL 7.67 4.00 5.62 3.32 5.33 4.36

Summary
Children’s image of their neighborhood elicited from a combination of
qualitative methods suggested that each child had constructed a distinct image based
on his or her lived experiences and values of the environment. Although school trip
is an important part of children’s daily commerce with the environment, how
children travel to and from school, however, was not found significant in
distinguishing varying images between the travel groups (i.e., active vs. passive). A
more comprehensive account of children’s travel activities not limited to school trip,
hence, might provide a better picture of travel mode and neighborhood image.
Nonetheless, several themes were emerged from an analysis of children’s
collective image. First, the influence of autocentric culture was evident on children’s
maps representing a strong sense of auto oriented paths with details of traffic related
features. Second, children had an acute sense of placed-based knowledge about
community safety issues. Particularly, inner city minority children in this study

123
expressed a high level of safety hazards in their neighborhoods and along their
school travel routes, which were more associated with the quality of social milieu
than physical environment. Third, when crime and violence were major concerns,
commercial spaces played an important role in constructing the image. Commercial
places such as shops, restaurants, or shopping malls were perceived as stimulating
and safe, while popular childhood places such as parks or recreation centers were
often perceived as unsafe or unfriendly. Fourth, children demonstrated their capacity
not only to observe and understand the environment, but also to evaluate and reflect
on making their neighborhood environment safer and walkable on their own terms.
Overall, the findings from this chapter suggest that any policy efforts to promote
active travel should address enhancing participatory capability of children in order to
identify sources of child perceived ‘unfreedoms’, the removal of which would
enhance children’s real opportunities.

124
Chapter 7
Policy Implications and Future Research
The purpose of this research was to expand knowledge base on school travel
by bringing children into the foreground within the spheres of ecological transaction.
While recently growing interests on the issue of children’s school travel add to much
long due understanding of a child friendly environment for the health and well-being
of children, they tend to continue relying on parental values by further marginalizing
children. It is noted that the emergence of growing focus on school travel has been
largely instigated by some much publicized issues, most notably childhood obesity
and physical inactivity, that required immediate attention from planners, health
officials, and policy makers alike. In response to the immediacy of the issue, the
majority of research has tended to preoccupy with understanding causality or
association at least (which was partly pursued here also) to inform policy decisions
that are currently being made without a solid understanding of children’s travel per
se. Although not arguing against its importance that is certainly invaluable and
needed, it is largely grounded on a travel decision making process considered as the
sole domain of parents.
As was discussed in Chapter 2, planners and policymakers had tended to
address more of parental anxiety or concerns in the form of provision and
distribution of physical resources (i.e., playgrounds, parks, sport-playing fields, or
open spaces) with values embedded in a negative freedom of children. Programs like
Safe Route to School focus on the removal of barriers to walking, largely in the form

125
of physical resources (i.e., lack of pedestrian infrastructure and amenities, traffic
calming devices, unfriendly street design) identified by parents or adult experts, to
promote active school travel with no considerations on the needs and perceptions of
children. This approach has been criticized for not taking a full consideration of
other elements also likely to influence parents’ decision on school travel mode (see
McMillan, 2005), but not for the basis of its reasoning that is by all means adult-
centric. By proposing the notion of walkability as freedom, adopted from Sen’s
capability approach, this study attempts to draw attentions to children’s choices and
real opportunities and factors that either facilitate or prohibit children in or from
actualizing what they value (walking to school as one of many).

Summary of the Research Findings and Limitations
The study results support the ecological approach in understanding children’s
school travel by identifying association of the layers of factors within the context of
children, family, and neighborhood with the likelihood of children walking to or
from school. Following observations can be made from the results of correlational
analyses:
(1) The majority of parental attitudinal and perceptual factors were found
significant in determining children’s school mode with different weight and value
placed on each trip. For example, the trip to school was more correlated with
perceived safety and efficiency, whereas parents appeared to place more importance
on their child’s competence, preference, and social supports available in the

126
neighborhood for the trip from school. This may reflect attitudinal adjustment as
parents become less available for the trip from school. From the view of exiting
policy that considers promoting active school travel among children as an end
product of parental decision, the results appear to justify focusing attentions on
parental values and concerns.
(2) However, parents’ assessment of probable risks for their children did not
appear to well reflect barriers that children actually encountered as well as their
perception of risks. Parents’ view of their neighborhood tended to be more negative
than their child’s perception, and they were generally more concerned about traffic
related barriers compared to children’s reports of actually encountering them en
route to school. Therefore, policy measures aim to improve walking conditions for
children based on parents’ perception may not appeal to children in the same way as
adult parents. For example, while parents’ sense of safety may be increased by the
completion of sidewalk network or installment of additional traffic signal and thus
are likely to let their kid to walk to or from school, which was found in the
evaluation of SR2S projects (see Boarnet et al., 2005), children’s sense of safety or
comfort may not be said to increase as same as their parents.
(3) The neighborhood environment imagined or perceived by the inner city
children in this study appeared spatially restricted and auto-centered with heightened
concerns over crime and personal safety. To these children, commercial places such
as food markets, shopping malls, and restaurants were important activity centers
considered as safe and stimulating, when the use of parks or recreation centers were

127
compromised by the presence of social dangers and thus perceived as risky.
Especially, children who currently walked to or from school more perceived the
presence of stores en route to school as an attractor that would encourage them to
walk more or make walking more enjoyable, than those who did not. This suggests
that the promotion of mixed-use development that New Urbanist claims among many
others to increase walkability may improve the quality of walking experience among
children who currently walk. However, how that will attract children who are
currently driven out of cars remains questionable.
(4) Both barriers to and attractors of walking were more closely related to
social milieu for the child participants in this inner city area than traffic or other
environmental features, which children shared similar views regardless of their
current mode to and from school. Children had an acute sense of place based
knowledge about safety issues in their neighborhoods. Overall, residential streets
were identified most dangerous for reasons mainly associated with gang related
activities, drugs, crimes, shooting or murder of which some of the children reported
to directly witness such incidences. In this locality with a high level of concerns for
personal safety, the presence of children being outside alone or walking alone to or
from school was viewed as a sign of parental neglect and simply considered as
placing children in unnecessary danger. Children were constantly advised not to play
on the street at all. This suggests that any policy responses aimed to promote walking
among children should be responsive to children’s concerns about gangs, drugs, and

128
crime as they pertain to how children experience and use their local environments in
low income inner city areas.
(5) Through a combination of participatory activities utilized in the study,
children demonstrated their ability to understand and critically evaluate their
neighborhood environment that was reflected on a long list of things that children
identified as sources of unfreedom. When given the chance children can provide
insightful micro level information about things that would make their walking to
school safe or enjoyable or about opportunity sets that would enable them to achieve
what they value. This suggests that existing policy can certainly benefit from
empowering children by enhancing their participatory capability in order to have
better effects on improving walkability and the wellbeing of children from their own
terms.
At the outset, qualitative nature of this research intended to reflect the
diversity and depth of individual child’s perceptions and experiences. Although the
research did not set to test the proposed model or to conduct a rigorous quantitative
analysis, the sample size did not allow examining interactions among identified
elements and thus understanding their relative influence on active school travel. The
relatively small sample size in this research may have influenced the level of
significance in the observed relationships. By adopting a convenience sampling
strategy largely controlling for ethnicity and income within limited inner city area,
the results from this study may lack generalizability. However, it should be noted
that certain environmental values responsive to children’s day to day functionings

129
are known to be shared by children across time and place (see e.g., Lynch, 1977;
Chawla, 2002).

Policy Implications
Policy implications for the research findings lie at the both conceptual and
practical level. This dissertation suggests that policy regarding active school travel
can better serve children and their family by removing the unfreedoms from which
they suffer. By introducing freedom in evaluating walkability, the study suggests
shifting current policy focus from the provision and improvement of environmental
resources to the enhancement of individual freedom. The principal motivation for
claiming this approach, as Sen (1999) argued in case of development, is to draw
attention to what has been missing, which are real opportunities of children to realize
what they value and aspire (walking as one example among many) and the active
role of children in its process. In other worlds, policy needs to concern how children
perceive and are able to benefit from given environmental resources in increasing
their opportunities for walking with children being active participants instead of
being passive recipients. Walkability from the aspect of freedom is thus by no means
a static and universalizing form but an interactive and progressive process.
Programs such as Safe Route to School can be more effective by asking
children to identify barriers for them to walk to school and including children’s
actual experiences and perceptions about changes or improvements that the program
made in its evaluation. While the results support strong influences of parental

130
attitudes and perceptions, they also indicate discrepancies between parents and their
child about perceived barriers en route to school and neighborhood safety. The
results suggest the usefulness of child-friendly participatory tools using alternative
forms of communication such as drawing and mapping not only in understanding
children’s use and perception of the environment, but also in acquiring better
information about their actual school travel routes. Educational campaigns that
facilitate discussions about a child-eye view of neighborhood walkability may help
parents in making school travel decision (including travel mode and route) as a
shared process with their child.
The ecological approach suggests that any policies and programs should be
sensitive to individual, familiar, and local context. For example, the results indicate
that social danger is perceived as a stronger barrier to walking than traffic danger
among children from low income families in inner city. Hence closing the sidewalk
gap in this area may not necessarily produce an intended result (i.e., promoting
walking) unless addressing children’s concerns for crime and violence. In this case,
community-based programs that organize an informal surveillance during school
commuting hours such as ‘the Kid Watch’, or a supervised walking group such as
‘the Walking School Bus’ may be more effective.
This study may also have a broader appeal to active living research in
disadvantaged communities. For example, the findings suggest that local parks and
recreation centers may become more of barriers to than facilitators of physical
activity among children in high crime areas. Again, this suggests that active living

131
policies can be more effective with children as valuable informants about sources
that may encourage or discourage them from physical activity.

Future Research
This dissertation demonstrated that children have much to say about what is
walkable environment when given a chance. Questions about the appropriateness of
involving children in the decision-making process and the capacity of children in
exercising such responsibilities however largely suggest participation as the domain
of adults’ activities (Matthews, Limb, & Taylor, 1999). More research of this type
may provide further evidences to support the development of guidelines for
participation of children in environmental decision making, such as identifying
necessary changes to enhance neighborhood walkability.
Future research can replicate the methods used in this study to find the nature
and structure of relationship between a complex set of multilevel factors, including
children’s value and perceptions and school travel mode with a larger sample of
students. Especially, further study is needed that includes students attending schools
in different neighborhood context in both urban and suburban settings that would
allow testing the generalizability of the dissertation findings. In order to broaden the
applicability of the findings into an aspect of active living, an additional research can
be done to examine the relationship between school travel mode, environmental
features, and child’s health outcomes.

132
Future research should also examine decision making process regarding
school travel mode and path within a familiar context. Such study would help to
better understand parent-child interactions in making travel decision and identify the
roles of children in negotiating their travel, rather than simply assuming it to be
under full parental control.

Concluding Remarks
Through the triangulation of capability approach, child-centered participatory
methods, and ecological perspectives, this research demonstrates the needs for policy
makers and planners to redefine their focuses on the issue of active school travel and
neighborhood walkability. From this quest, the study shows that children’
environmental values and needs should not be generally assumed in order to enhance
their freedom in both substantive and procedural sense. The results of this study
hence advance the discussion on the relationship between active school travel and
the environment by bringing children into the foreground within the spheres of
ecological transaction.

133
Bibliography
Agran, P. F., Winn, D. G., Anderson, C., Tran, C., & Del Valle, C. P. (1996). The
role of the physical and traffic environment in child pedestrian injuries.
Pediatrics, 98(6), 1096-1103.
Ahlport, K. N., Linnan, L., Vaughn, A., Evenson, K. R., & Ward, D. S. (2008).
Barriers to and Facilitators of Walking and Bicycling to School: Formative
Results from the Non-Motorized Travel Study. Health Education &
Behavior, 35(2), 221-244.
Aitken, S. (1994). Putting Children in their Place. Washington, DC: Association of
American Geographers.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Alaimo, K. (2002). Historical Roots of Children's Rights in Europe and the United
States. In K. Alaimo & B. Klug (Eds.), Children as Equals: Exploring the
Rights of the Child (pp. 1-23). Lanham; New York; Oxford: University Press
of America, Inc.
Alfonzo, M., Boarnet, M. G., Day, K., McMillan, T. E., & Anderson, C. L. (2008).
The Relationship of Neighbourhood Built Environment Features and Adult
Parents' Walking. Journal of Urban Design, 13(1), 29-51.
Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty
Reduction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Alton, D., Adab, P., Roberts, L., & Barrett, T. (2006). Relationship between walking
levels and perceptions of the local neighborhood environment. Arch Dis
Child, 92, 29-33.
Anderssen, N., & Wold, B. (1992). Parental and Peer Influences on Leisure-Time
Physical Activity in Young Adolescents. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 63(4), 341-348.

134
Appleyard, B. S. (2005). Livable Streets for School Children: How Safe Routes to
School programs can improve street and community livability for children
[Electronic Version]. NCBW Forum. Retrieved Mar. 05, 2006 from
http://www.bikewalk.org/forumnewart.php.
Appleyard, D. (1970). Styles and Methods of Structuring a City. Environment and
Behavior, 2, 110-117.
Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Archard, D., & Macleod, C. M. (2002). The moral and political status of children.
Oxford, U.K. ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Arneil, B. (2002). Becoming versus Being: A Critical Analysis of the Child in
Liberal Theory. In D. Archard & C. M. Macleod (Eds.), The Moral and
Political Status of Children (pp. 70-94). Oxford, U.K.; New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bagley, M. N., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2002). The impact of residential neighborhood
type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach The
Annals of Regional Science, 36(2), 279-297.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewoor Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Banerjee, T., & Baer, W. C. (1984). Beyond the neighborhood unit : residential
environments and public policy. New York: Plenum Press.
Banerjee, T., & Baer, W. C. (1987). Variable Constructs and Images of the
Residential Environment: Findings from Los Angeles. In C. S. Yadav (Ed.),
Perceptual and Cognitive Image of the City (pp. 271-303). New Delhi:
Concept Publishing Company.
Bartlett, S., Hart, R., Satterthwaite, D., de la Barra, X., & Messair, A. (1999). Cities
for children : children's rights, poverty and urban management. London:
Earthscan.

135
Beaumont, C. E., & Pianca, E. G. (2002). Why Johnny Can't Walk to School:
Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl. Washington, DC:
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Berlin, I. (1969). Four Essays on Liberty (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University
Press.
Biggeri, M., Libanora, R., Mariani, S., & Menchini, L. (2006). Children
Conceptualizing their Capabilities: Results of a Survey Conducted during the
First Children's World Congress on Child Labour. Journal of Human
Development, 7(1), 59-83.
Black, C., Collins, A., & Snell, M. (2001). Encouraging Walking: The Case of
Journey-to-school Trips in Compact Urban Areas. Urban Studies, 38(7),
1121-1141.
Blakely, K. S. (1993). Parents' Conceptions of Social Dangers to Children in the
Urban Environment. Children's Environmnet, 11(1), 20-35.
Boarnet, M. G., Anderson, C., Day, K., McMillan, T. E., & Alfonzo, M. (2005).
Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School Legislation: Urban Form
Changes and Children's Active Transportation to School. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 134-140.
Boarnet, M. G., & Crane, R. (2001). Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form
on Travel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boarnet, M. G., & Sarmiento, S. (1998). Can Land-use Policy Really Affect Travel
Behaviour? A Study of the Link Between Non-work Travel and Land-use
Characteristics. Urban Studies, 35(7), 1155-1169.
Booth, M. L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O., & Leslie, E. (2000). Social-
Cognitive and Perceived Environment Influences Associated with Physical
Activity in Older Australians Preventive Medicine, 31(1), 15-22.

136
Bradshaw, R. (1995). Why do Parents Drive Their Children to School? . Traffic
Engineering and Control 36(1), 16-19.
Braza, M., Shoemaker, W., & Seeley, A. (2004). Neighborhood Design and Rates of
Walking and Biking to Elementary School in 34 California Communities.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 19(12), 128-136.
Brennan, S., & Noggle, R. (2000). Rawls's Neglected Childhood: Reflections on the
Original Position, Stability, and the Child' Sense of Justice. In V. Davison &
C. Wolf (Eds.), The Idea of A Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls (pp. 46-
72). Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
CEFPI. (2004). Creating Connections. Scottsdale, AZ: The Council of Education
Facility Planners.
Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2003). Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes:
Evidence From the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public
Health, 93(9), 1478-1483.
Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1996). Travel Demand and the Three Ds: Density,
Diversity, and Design. Berkeley University of California at Berkeley Institute
of Urban and Regional Development.
Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood Place Attachment. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.),
Place Attachment (pp. 63-86). New York: Plenum Press.
Chawla, L., ed. (2002). Growing Up in an Urbanising World. London: Earthscan.
Christoffel, K. K., Schofer, J. L., Lavigne, J. V., Tanz, R. R., Wills, K., White, B., et
al. (1991). "Kids 'n' Cars", an Ongoing Study of Pedestrian Injuries:
Description and Early Findings. Children's Environments Quarterly, 8(2), 41-
50.

137
Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of What? On Welfare, Goods, and Capability. In M.
Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life (pp. 9-29). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Collin, D. C. A., & Kearns, R. A. (2001). Under curfew or under seige? Legal
geographies of young people. Geoforum, 32, 389-403.
Collins, D. C. A., & Kearns, R. A. (2001). The Safe Journey of an Enterprising
School: Negotiating Landscapes of Opportunity and Risk. Health & Place, 7,
293-306.
Crane, R. (1996a). Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Travel
in Neotraditional Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association,
62(1), 51-65.
Crane, R. (1996b). On Form versus Function: Will the New Urabnism Reduce
Traffic, or Increase It? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15,
117-126.
Crane, R. (2000). The Influence of Urban Form on Travel: An Interpretive Review.
Journal of Planning Literature, 15(1), 3-23.
Crane, R., & Crepeau, R. (1998). Does Neighborhood Design Influence Travel? A
Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data. Transportation Research
D, 3(4), 225-238.
Davis, M. (1990). City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles London ;
New York Verso.
Day, K. (2006). Active Living and Social Justice. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 72(1), 88-99.
Dellinger, A. M., & Staunton, C. E. (2002). Barriers to Children Walking and Biking
to School: United States, 1999. MMWR 51(32), 701-704.

138
Di Tommaso, M. L. (2007). Children capabilities: A structural equation model for
India. Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 436-450.
DiGuiseppi, C., Roberts, I., Li, L., & Allen, D. (1998). Determinants of Car Travel
on Daily Journeys to School: Cross Sectional Survey of Primary School
Children. British Medical Journal, 316, 1426-1428.
Dowling, R. (2000). Cultures of mothering and car use in suburban Sydney: a
preliminary investigation. Geoforum, 31, 345-353.
Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (Eds.). (1973). Image & Environmnet: Cognitive Mapping
and Spatial Behavior. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. .
Dye, C. J., & Wilcox, S. (2006). Beliefs of Low-Income and Rural Older Women
Regarding Physical Activity You Have to Want to Make Your Life Better
Women and Health, 43(1), 115-134.
Evenson, K. R., Huston, S. L., McMillan, B. J., Bors, P., & Ward, D. S. (2003).
Statewide Prevalence and Correlates of Walking and Bicycling to School.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med., 157, 887-892.
Evers, W. M. (1978). Rawls And Children. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2(2), 109-
114.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the Built Environment. Transportation
Reseach Record, 1780, 87-114.
Ewing, R., Schroeer, W., & Greene, W. (2004). School Location and Student Travel:
Analysis of Factors Affecting Mode Choice. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1895, 55-63.
Farver, J. A. M., Ghosh, C., & Garcia, C. (2000). Children's Perceptions of Their
Neighborhoods. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(2), 139-
163.

139
Ferreira, I., van der Horst, K., Wendel-Vos, W., Kremers, S., van Lenthe, F. J., &
Brug, J. (2006). Environmental correlates of physical activity in youth- a
review and update. Obesity Reviews, 8, 129-154.
Forsyth, A., Oakes, J. M., Schmitz, K. H., & Hearst, M. (2007). Does Residential
Density Increase Walking and Other Physical Activity? Urban Studies, 44(4),
679-697.
Frank, L. D., & Pivo, G. (1994). Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of
Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking.
Transportation Research Record, 1466, 44-52.
Freedson, P. S., & Evenson, S. (1991). Familial aggregation in physical activity.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(4), 384-389.
Freund, P., & Martin, G. (1993). The Ecology of the Automobile. Montréal; New
York: Black Rose Books.
Fulton, J. E., Shisler, J. L., Yore, M. M., & Caspersen, C. J. (2005). Active
Transportation to School: Findings From a National Survey. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(3), 352-357.
Furedi, F. (2001). Paranoid Parenting: Abandon your Ancieties and be a Good
Parent. London: Cassell.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures : selected essays New York: Basic
Books.
Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). Socioeconomic Status Differences in
Recreational Physical Activity Levels and Real and Perceived Access to a
Supportive Physical Environment. Preventive Medicine, 35, 601-611.
Goldberg, D. (2005). Of Sprawl Schools & Small Schools [Electronic Version]. On
Common Ground, Winter. Retrieved June 19, 2005 from
http://www.realtor.org/sg3.nsf/Pages/winter05sprawl?OpenDocument.

140
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78(6), 1360-1380.
Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (2005). Researching children's experience : methods and
approaches. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
Greenwald, M. J., & Boarnet, M. G. (2001). Built Environment as Determinant of
Walking Behavior: Analyzing Nonwork Pedestrian Travel in Portland,
Oregon. Transportation Research Record, 1780, 33-42.
Halseth, G., & Doddridge, J. (2000). Children's cognitive mapping: a potential tool
for neighborhood planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, 27, 565-582.
Handy, S. (1996). Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin
Neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record 1552, 135-144.
Handy, S. (2005). Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationships Among
Transportation, Land Use, and Physical Activity (Resource paper for TRB
Special Report 282). Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2005). Correlation or causality between the
built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California.
Transportation Research D, 10, 427-444.
Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2006). Self-Selection in the Relationship
between the Built Environment and Walking. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 72(1), 55-74.
Hart, R. (1979). Children's Experience of Place. New York: Irvington.
Hedley, A. A., Ogden, C. L., Johnson, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., & Flegal,
K. M. (2004). Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among US Children,
Adolescents, and Adults, 1999-2002 JAMA, 291(2847-2850).

141
Hillman, M., & Adams, J. (1992). Children's Freedom and Safety. Children's
Environments, 9(2), 12-33.
Hillman, M., Adams, J., & Whitelegg, J. (1990). One false move ... : a study of
children's independent mobility. London: PSI.
Hoehner, C. M., Brennan, L. K., Brownson, R. C., Handy, S. L., & Killingsworth, R.
(2003). Opportunities for Integrating Public Health and Urban Planning
Approaches to Promote Active Community Environments. American Journal
of Health Promotion, 18(1), 14-20.
Hoehner, C. M., Brennan Ramirez, L. K., Elliott, M. B., Handy, S. L., & Brownson,
R. C. (2005). Perceived and Objective Environmental Measures and Physical
Activity Among Urban Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
28(2S2), 105-116.
Hubsmith, D. (2007). Safe Routes to School: 2007 State of the States Report. XX:
Safe Route to School National Partnership.
Hume, C., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2005). Children's perceptions of their home and
neighborhood environments, and their association with objectively measured
physical activity: a qualitative and quantitative study. Health Education
Research, 20(1), 1-13.
Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental Factors Associated with
Adults' Participation in Physical Activity: A Review. American Journal of
Prventive Medicine, 22(3), 188-199.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage
Books.
Jenks, C. (1996). Childhood. London; New York: Routledge.
Joshi, M. S., & Maclean, M. (1995). Parental Attitudes to Children's Journey to
School World Transport Policy & Practice, 1(4), 29-36.

142
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People in Mind: Design and
Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, E.D.: Island Press.
Kaufman, A. (2006). Symposium on Capabilities: Capabilities and Freedom. The
Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 289-300.
Keller, S. I. (1968). The urban neighborhood: a sociological perspective. New York:
Random House.
Kerr, J., Rosenberg, D., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D., & Conway, T. L.
(2006). Active Commuting to School: Associations with Environment and
Parental Concerns. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(4), 787-794.
Khattak, A. J., & Rodriguez, D. (2005). Travel behavior in neo-traditional
neighborhood developments: A case study in USA Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(6), 481-500.
King, A. C., Stokols, D., Talen, E., Brassington, G. S., & Killingsworth, R. (2002).
Theoretical Approaches to the Promotion of Physical Activity: Forging a
Transdisciplinary Paradigm. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
23(2S), 15-25.
Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P., & Laidet, L. (1997). A Micro-Analysis of Land Use
and Travel in Five Neighborhood in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Transportation 24, 125-158.
Krizek, K. J., & Johnson, P. J. (2006). Proximity to Trails and Retail: Effects on
Urban Cycling and Walking. Journal of the American Planning Association,
72(1), 33-42.
Kyttä, M. (1997). Children's independent mobility in urban, small town, and rural
environments. In R. Camstra (Ed.), Growing up in a changing urban
landscape (pp. 41-52). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Ladd, F. C. (1970). Black Youths View Their Envrionment: Neighborhood Maps.
Environment and Behavior, 2(1), 74-99.

143
Lawrence, B. K., Bingler, S., Diamond, B. M., Hill, B., Hoffman, J. L., Howley, C.
B., et al. (2002). Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools.
Cincinatti, OH: KnowledgeWorks Foundation.
Lee, C., & Moudon, A. V. (2004). Physical Activity and Environment Research in
the Health Field: Implications for Urban and Transportation Planning
Practice and Research. Journal of Planning Literature 19(2), 147-181.
Lee, C., & Moudon, A. V. (2006). Correlates of Walking for Transportation or
Recreation Purposes. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3 (Suppl 1),
S77-S98.
Lee, S. M., & Tudor-Locke, C. (2005). Active Versus Passive Commuting to School:
What Children Say. American Journal of Health Studies, 20(3/4), 212-217.
Lee, T., & Rowe, N. (1994). Parent's and children's perceived risk of the journey to
school. Architecture & Comportement, 10(4), 379-389.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2006). Is it Safe to Walk? Neighborhood Safety and Security
Considerations and Their Effects on Walking. Journal of Planning
Literature, 20(3), 219-232.
Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian Environment and Sense of Community. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 301-312.
Lund, H. (2003). Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian
Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors. Journal of the American Planning
Association 69(4), 414-429.
Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lynch, K., ed. . (1977). Growing up in Cities: Studies of the Spatial Environment of
Adolescence in Cracow, Melbourne, Mexico City, Salta, Toulca, and
Warszawa. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

144
Mackett, R. L., Lucas, L., Paskins, J., & Turbin, J. (2005). The therapeutic value of
children's everyday travel. Transportation Research Part A, 39, 205-219.
Marquez, D. X., & McAuley, E. (2006). Social Cognitive Correlates of Leisure Time
Physical Activity Among Latinos Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(3),
281-289.
Martin, S., & Carson, S. (2005). Barriers to Children Walking to or from School-
United States, 2004. MMWR, 54(38), 949-952.
Matthews, M. H. (1987). Gender, Home Range and Environmental Cognition.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 12, 32-56.
Matthews, M. H. (1992). Making Sense of Place; Children's Understanding of
Large- Scale Environments. Hemel Hempstead Harvester Wheatsheaf
Matthews, M. H., & Limb, M. (1999). Defining an Agenda for the Geography of
Children: Review and Prospect. Progress in Human Geography 23(1), 61-90.
Matthews, M. H., Limb, M., & Taylor, M. (1999). Young people's participation and
representation in society. Geoforum, 30, 135-144.
Matthews, M. H., Taylor, M., Percy-Smith, B., & Limb, M. (2000). THE
Unacceptable Flaneur: The Shopping Mall as Teenage Hangout. Childhood
7(3), 279-294
Mattsson, K. T. (2002). Children's (in)dependent mobility and parents' chauffeuring
in the town and the countryside. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale
Geografie, 93(4), 443-453
Mayr, J. M., Eder, C., Berghold, A., Wernig, J., Khayati, S., & Ruppert-Kohlmayr,
A. (2003). Causes and consequences of pedestrian injuries in children. Eur J
Pediatr, 162, 184-190.
McDonald, N. C. (2005a). Children's Travel: Patterns and Influence. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

145
McDonald, N. C. (2005b). Does Residential Density Affect the Travel "Gender
Gap"? . In Research on Women's Issue in Transportation: Report of a
Conference (pp. 68-75). Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
McDonald, N. C. (2006). Exploratory Analysis of Children's Travel Pattern.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1977, 1-7.
McDonald, N. C. (2007). Active Transportation to School: Trends Among U.S.
Schoolchildren, 1969-2001. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(6),
509-516.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and
Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
McMillan, T. E. (2003). Walking and Urban Form: Modeling and Testing Parental
Decision about Children's Travel. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation University
of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA.
McMillan, T. E. (2005). Urban Form and a Child's Trip to School: The Current
Literature and a Framework for Future Research. Journal of Planning
Literature 19(4), 440-456.
McMillan, T. E., Day, K., Boarnet, M. G., Alfonzo, M., & Anderson, C. (2006).
Johnny Walks to School - Does Jane? Sex Differences in Children's Active
Travel to School [Electronic Version]. Children, Youth and Environments,
16, 75-89. Retrieved September 18, 2006 from
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/.
Merom, D., Tudor-Locke, C., Bauman, A., & Rissel, C. (2006). Active commuting
to school among NSW primary school children: implications for public
health Health & Place, 12(4), 678-687.
Meyer, H. A., & Astor, R. A. (2002). Child and Parent Perspectives on Routes to and
from School in High Crime Neighborhoods. Journal of School Violence, 1(4),
101-128.

146
Mitchell, H., Kearns, R. A., & Collins, D. C. A. (2007). Nuances of neighborhood:
Children's perceptions of the space between home and school in Auckland,
New Zealand. Geoforum, 38, 614-627.
Moore, L. L., Lombardi, D. A., White, M. J., Campbell, J. L., Oliveria, S. A., &
Ellison, R. C. (1991). Influence of parents' physical activity levels on activity
levels of young children. Journal of Pediatrics, 118(2), 215-219.
Moore, R. C. (1986). Childhood's Domain : Play and place in child development.
London ; Dover, N.H.: Croom Helm.
Morrow, V. (2001). Using qualitative methods to elicit young people's perspectives
on their environments: some ideas for community health initiatives. Health
Education Research: Theory & Practice, 16(3), 255-268.
Moudon, A. V., Hess, P., Snyder, M. C., & Stanilov, K. (1997). Effects of Site
Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-Use, Medium-Density Environments.
Transportation Research Record 1578, 48-55.
Mueller, B. A., Rivara, F. P., Shyh-Mine, L., & Weiss, N. S. (1990). Environmental
factors and teh risk for childhood pedestrian-motor vehicle collision
occurence. American Journal of Epidemiology, 132, 550-560.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2007). Traffic Safety Facts: 2005
Data (No. DOT HS 810 624). Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics
and Analysis.
National SAFE KIDS Campaign. (2004). Childhood Injury Fact Sheet. Washington,
D.C.: NSKC.
Nayak, A. (2003). 'Through Children's Eyes': Childhood, Place, and the Fear of
Crime. Geoforum, 34, 303-315.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design.
New York: Macmillan.

147
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development : the capabilities approach.
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social
Justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2-3), 33-59.
O'brien, M., Jones, D., Sloan, D., & Rustin, M. (2000). Children's Independent
Spatial Mobility in the Urban Public Realm. Childhood, 7(3), 257-277.
Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., & Sallis, J. F. (2004). Understanding
Environmental Influences on Walking: Review and Research Agenda.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(1), 67-76.
Pain, R. (2006). Paranoid parenting? Rematerializing risk and fear for children.
Social & Cultural Geography, 7(2), 221-243.
Perez, C., & Hart, R. (1980). Beyond Playgrounds: Planning for Children's Access to
the Environment. In Innovation in Play Environments (pp. 252-271). New
York: St. Martin's Press.
Perry, C. A. (1939). Housing for the machine age. New York,: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Pett, M. A. (1999) Nonparametric Statistics for Health Care Research: Statistics for
Small Samples and Unusual Distributions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pettit, P. (2001). Capability and Freedom: A Defense of Sen. Economics and
Philosophy, 17, 1-20.
Philo, C. (2000). 'THE CORNER-STONES OF MY WORLD' Editorial introduction
to special issue on spaces of childhood. Childhood, 7(3), 243-256.

148
Prezza, M., Pilloni, S., Morabito, C., Sersante, C., Alparone, F. R., & Giuliani, M. V.
(2001). The Influence of Psychosocial and Environmental Factors on
Children's Independent Mobility and Relationship to Peer Frequentation.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11, 435-450.
Prout, A., & James, A. (1990). A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood?
Provenance, Promise and Problems. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.),
Constructing and reconstructing childhood : new directions in the
sociological study of childhood (pp. 7-34). London ; New York: Falmer
Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls. J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. by E. Kelly. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Rhoulac, T. D. (2005). Bus or Car?: The Classic Choice in School Transportation
Transportation Research Record, 1922, 98-104.
Rissotto, A., & Tonucci, F. (2002). Freedom of Movement and Environmental
Knowledge in Elementary School Children. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 22(1), 65-77.
Rivara, F. P., & Barber, M. (1985). Demographic Analysis of Childhood Pedestrian
Injuries. Pediatrics, 76(3), 375-381.
Roberts, I., Norton, R., Jackson, R., Dunn, R., & Hassall, I. (1995). Effect of
environmental factors on risk of injury child pedestrian by motor vehicles: a
case-control study. British Medical Journal, 310, 91-94.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of
Human Development, 6(1), 93-114.
Rodriguez, D. A., & Joo, J. (2004). The relationship between non-motorized mode
choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research Part D,
9, 151-173.

149
Rosenbloom, S. (1987). The Impact of Growing Children on Their Parents' Travel
Behavior: A Comparative Analysis Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, 1135, 17-25.
Ross, N. J. (2007). 'My Journey to School...': Foregrounding the Meaning of School
Journeys and Children's Engagements and Interactions in their Everday
Localities. Children's Geographies, 5(4), 373-391.
Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Black, J. B., & Chen, D. (2003). Neighborhood-Based
Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation.
American Journal of Public Health 83(9), 1552-1558.
Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental Correlates of
Walking and Cycling: Findings From the Transportation, Urban Design, and
Planning Literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80-91.
Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen's Capability Approach to Education: A Critical
Exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 17-34.
Sallis, J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K., & Kerr, J.
(2006). An Ecological Approach to Creating Active Living Comunities.
Annual Review of Public Health, 27(297-322).
Sallis, J. F., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., & Kraft, M. K. (2004). Active
Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for Collaboration on
Transportation and Public Health Research. Transportation Research Part A
38, 249-268.
Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (1999). Physical activity and behavioral medicine.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Schlossberg, M., Greene, J., Phillips, P. P., Johnson, B., & Parker, B. (2006). School
Trips: Effects of Urban Form and Distance on Travel Mode. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 72(3), 337-346.

150
Scott, S., Jackson, S., & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). Swings and Roundabouts: Risk
Anxiety and the Everday Words of Children. Sociology, 32(4), 689-705.
Sell, J. (1985). Children and the Neighbourhood Environmental Quality. Children's
Environment Quarterly 2, 41-47.
Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984.
Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169-221.
Sen, A. (1987). On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: New York: Blackwell.
Sen, A. (1990). Justice: Means versus Freedom. Philosophy and Public Affairs,
19(2), 111-121.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. New York; Oxford [England]: Russell Sage
Foundation; Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and Well-Being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The
Quality of Life (pp. 30-53). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom (1st ed.). New York: Knopf.
Sen, A. (2005). Human Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development,
6(2), 151-166.
Shriver, K. (1997). Influence of Environmental Design on Pedestrian Travel
Behavior in Four Austin Neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record
1578, 64-75.
Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of Exclusion. London: Routledge.
Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City. Journal of Urban Planning
and Development, 131(4), 246-257.

151
Spencer, C., & Blades, M. (Eds.). (2006). Children and their Environments:
Learning, Using and Designing Spaces. Cambridge, UK; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Staunton, C. E., Hubsmith, D., & Kallins, W. (2003). Promoting Safe Walking and
Biking to School: The Martin County Success Story. American Journal of
Public Health 93(9), 1431-1434.
Strauss, R. S., Rodzilsky, D., Burack, G., & Colin, M. (2001). Psychosocial
Correlates of Physical Activity in Healthy Children Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med., 155, 897-902.
Surface Transportation Policy Project. (2003). Can't Get There from Here: The
Declining Independent Mobility of California's Children and Youth.
Washington, D.C.: Surface Transportation Policy Project.
Suttles, G. D. (1972). Social Construction of Communities. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Thomsen, T. U. (2004). Children - Automobility's immobilized others? Transport
Reviews, 24(5), 515-532.
Tice, P., Princiotta, D., Chapman, C., & Bielick, S. (2006). Trends in the Use of
School Choice: 1993 to 2003 (No. NCES 2007-045). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Timperio, A., Ball, J., Salmon, J., Roberts, R., Giles-Corti, B., Simmons, D., et al.
(2006). Personal, Family, Social, and Environmental Correlates of Active
Commuting to School. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(1), 45-
51.
Timperio, A., Crawford, D., Telford, A., & Salmon, J. (2004). Perceptions about the
local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children. Preventive
Medicine, 38, 39-47.

152
Transportation Research Board. (2002). Special Report 269: The Relative Risks of
School Travel: A National Perspective and Guidance for Local Community
Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Tudor-Locke, C., Ainworth, B. E., Adair, L. S., & Popkin, B. M. (2003). Objective
Physical Activity of Filipino Youth Stratified for Commuting Mode to
School. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35(3), 465-471.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). School Choices for Parents. Retrieved
Dec.17, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/parents/schools/choice/definitions.html#cs
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical Activity and
Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease
Control and Prevention.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy people 2010:
Understanding and Improving Human Health. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Travel and Environmental
Implications of School Siting. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Uhm, J., & Banerjee, T. (Forthcoming). Conceptualizing the Child-Friendly
Neighborhood: Form, Family, and Functionings In G. Moore, D. Lu & R.
Lamb (Eds.), The Built Environment for the 21st Century: Environment,
Behaviour and Society: Springer.
Valentine, G. (1996). Angels and devils: moral landscapes of childhood.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 14, 581-599.
Valentine, G. (1997a). Gender, children and cultures of parenting. In R. Camstra
(Ed.), Growing up in a changing urban landscape (pp. 53-78). Assen, the
Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

153
Valentine, G. (1997b). "Oh Yes I Can.""Oh No You Can't": Children and Parents'
Understandings of Kid's Competence to Negotiate Public Space Safely.
Antipode, 29(1), 65-89.
van Vliet, W. (1983). Children's Travel Behavior. Ekistics, 50(298), 61-65.
Walton-Haynes, L. (2002). Pedestrian Injuries to Young Children (No. 5).
Sacramento: California Department of Health Services. Epidemiology and
Prevention for Injury Control (EPIC) Branch.
Wang, G., & Dietz, W. H. (2002). Economic Burden of Obesity in Youths Aged 6 to
17 Years: 1979-1999 Pediatrics, 109(5), 81-85.
Webber, M. M. (1964). The Urban Place and the Nonplace Urban Realm. In M. M.
Webber, Foley, D. L., Guttenberg, A. Z., Wheaton, W. L. C., Wurster, C. B.,
& Dyckman, J. W. (Ed.), Explorations into Urban Structure (pp. 19-41).
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Weihs, J. (2003). State Acreage Policies. Scottsdale, AZ: The Council of
Educational Facility Planners.
Weinstein, A., Feigley, P., Pullen, P., Mann, L., & Redman, L. (1999).
Neighborhood Safety and the Prevalence of Physical Inactivity - Selected
States, 1996 MMWR, 48, 143-146.
Wen, L. M., Fry, D., Rissel, C., Dirkis, H., Balafas, A., & Merom, D. (2008). Factors
associated with children being driven to school: implications for walk to
school programs. Health Education Research, 23(2), 325-334.
Wendel-Vos, W., Doroomers, M., Kremers, S., Brug, J., & van Lenthe, F. (2007).
Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: a
systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 8, 425-440.
Wilson, E. J., Wilson, R., & Krizek, K. J. (2007). The implications of school choice
on travel behavior and environmental emissions. Transportation Research
Part D, 12, 506-518.

154
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and
neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29-38.
Woolley, H., Dunn, J., Spencer, C., Short, T., & Rowley, G. (1999). Children
Describe Their Experiences of the City Centre: A Qualitative Study of the
Fears and Concerns which May Limit Their Full Participation. Landscape
Research, 24(3), 287-301.
Yarlagadda, A. K., & Srinivasan, S. (2008). Modeling Children's School Travel
Mode and Parental Escort Decisions. Transportation, 35, 201-218.
Zeiher, H. (2003). Shaping daily life in urban environments. In P. Christensen & M.
O'Brien (Eds.), Children in the City: Home, Neighborhood and Community
(pp. 66-81). London; NewYork: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ziviani, J., Scott, J., & Wadley, D. (2004). Walking to school: Incidental physical
activity in the daily occupations of Australian children. Occupational
Therapy International, 11(1), 1-11.

155
Appendix A

Child Questionnaire

1. How do you travel to/from school?
(check as many boxes as apply in both columns)
To School From School
Walk □ □
Bike □ □
School Bus □ □
Car □ □
Car share (traveling with your friends or other
children in the same car)
□ □

2. How often do you walk to/from school?
(check one box in both columns)
To School From School
Most days □ □
At least twice a week □ □
Once a week □ □
Never □ □

3. How often do you bike to/from school?
(check one box in both columns)
To School From School
Most days □ □
At least twice a week □ □
Once a week □ □
Never □ □

4. When you walk or bike to/from school, who do you walk
or bike with most of the time? (check one box in both
columns)
To School From School
Your parent □ □
Other adults (parents of your friends) □ □
Your sister or brother □ □
Your friend □ □
On your own □ □
I never walk or bike to/from school □ □

5. What do you have to do when you travel to/from school? (check as many boxes as
apply)
Cross a road with a heavy traffic □
Cross a road where there is no
crosswalk
□
Cross a road where there is a crossing
guard
□
Cross a road where there is no stop
sign or signal
□
Cross many driveways □
Cross a road where cars are moving
fast
□
Walk/bike through an underpass □ Walk/bike through an alley □
Walk/ bike in the road because there is no
sidewalk/bicycle path
□
Walk/bike through a parking lot or a
vacant lot
□
Other:__________________________________________________________

156
6. What do you see in your school neighborhood when you are traveling to/from
school? (check as many boxes as apply)

□

Neighborhood
park/playground/
sports playing
fields
□

Abandoned
building
□
Abandoned
car
□
Building with
broken or
boarded up
windows

□ Restaurant □ Vacant lot □
Freeway
ramps
□ Alleys

□ Church or temple □
Clothing/sh
oe store
□
Community
center
□
Fast food store
(burger, pizza,
etc.)

□ Bar □ Mural □ Trees □ Garden

□ Library □ Museum □ Graffiti □ Movie theater

□ Post office □ Fire station □ Bus stops □
Beauty or
barber shop

□ Police station □ Street lights □ Litter □
Pedestrian
crossing

□ Bike lanes □ Stop lights □
Heavy
Trucks
□ Billboards

□ Food market □
Heavy
traffic
□ Light traffic □ Buses

□ Banks □
Dry
Cleaners
□ Traffic signs □ Parked cars

□
Seats or benches
on the sidewalk
□
Chain link
fences
□
Hospital or
clinic
□
Speed bumps
in street

□ Gas station □ Empty street □ Laundromat □ Other schools

□ Shaded streets □
Public
telephone
□
Hardware
store
□
Auto repair
shop

□ Other: __________________________________________

7. Do you feel safe walking or biking to/from school? □ Yes □ No
→ If you checked “No”, which of the followings make you feel unsafe walking
to/from school? (check as many boxes as apply)

□ Fast moving cars □ No crossing guards □ Bullies or gangs
□
Difficult to cross
a road
□ Homeless people □ Drug activities
□
No sidewalk or
broken sidewalk
□
No stop light for
pedestrians or bikers
□
Lights at intersections
change before I can
cross the street

□
No bike path or
broken bike path
□
Empty streets with no
people
□ Dogs without leash
□ No crosswalks □ Many strangers □ Tagger

157
□ Graffiti □ Other _____________________________________
8. Do you know about the Kid Watch program? □ Yes □ No

9. Have you ever received help from a Kid Watch
volunteer while walking or biking to/from school?
□ Yes □ No
→ If “Yes”, what kind of help did you get? (check as many boxes as apply)

□
Kid Watch volunteer called my
parent (or an adult in my family)
□ Kid Watch volunteer called school
□ Kid watch volunteer called police □ Other _______________________

10. Have you had an accident or been injured while walking
or biking to/from school?
□ Yes □ No
→ If “Yes”, what kinds of accidents have happened or how have you been
injured? (check as many boxes as apply)

□ Accident with a car □ Fell on the sidewalk
□ Accident with a bike □ Got into a fight
□ Other ________________________________________________

11. What would make walking to school safer or encourage you to walk or bike to
school more?
(check as many boxes as apply)

□ More streets with sidewalk □ Cleaner street

□ Wider sidewalk □ Safe places to cross the road

□ Less cars □ School crossing guard

□ Cars moving slower □ More Kid Watch volunteers

□ More children to walk with □ Less crime in my neighborhood

□ Lighter school bag □ No graffiti

□ Better street lighting □
No abandoned building or vacant
lot

□
Crossing lights giving more time
to cross the street
□
Push buttons to change crossing
signs

□ More speed bumps □ Removal of graffiti

□ More stores that I can visit □ More shady street

□ More crossing lights □ More bike paths

□ Other ____________________________________________________

158

12. If you could choose, how would you like to travel to
and from school? (check one box in both columns)
To School From
School
Walk □ □
Bike □ □
School Bus □ □
Car □ □
Car share (traveling with your friends or other
children in the same car)
□ □

13. How many people do you know in your neighborhood?

14. How many friends with whom you can play do you have in your
neighborhood?

159
Appendix B

Parent Questionnaire (English)

Dear Parent,

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. We are researchers from the
School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern
California. We are studying how your child travels to and from school and how your
neighborhood environment supports the safety of children walking or biking to
school.

Please fill out this survey tonight and send it back to school with your child by
__________.

Answering these questions will take about 15 minutes. If you receive a survey from
more than one child, please complete and send back only one survey. Your answers
will remain confidential as we will not collect any of your personal information such
as name and address. If you are unsure or not comfortable answering any of the
questions, you can simply skip those questions. We hope that you will fill out this
survey and we appreciate your cooperation and help.

If you have any questions or prefer to complete this survey by phone, please contact
Ms. JungA Uhm at (213) 740-9494.

Thank you.

Dr. Tridib Banerjee
Professor
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California

160
(Question 1~ 7) These questions are about how your child normally travels to and from
school. If the routine varies, please answer based on the most regular routine. For
questions 1~5, please check one box in both columns.

To School From School
1. How does your child usually travel to/from school? (check
as many boxes as apply in both columns)

Driven alone or with others in household □ □
Car share □ □
Walk □ □
Bike □ □
School bus □ □
Public bus □ □
Other: ____________________________ □ □
2. How long does it take your child to travel to/from school?
Less than 5 minutes □ □
5-10 minutes □ □
11-20 minutes □ □
More than 20 minutes □ □
Not sure □ □
3. Do any adults travel some or most of the way to/from
school with your child?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes
□ No
→ If yes,
3.1. Who does your child travel with?
Mother □ □
Father □ □
Other adult relative or friend □ □
Brothers or sisters □ □
School friends from the neighborhood □ □
Other: _______________________ □ □
3.2. Where does the adult normally go after
dropping off/picking up the child at or near school?

Return home □ □
To work, not at home □ □
Shopping or other errands □ □
Drop off other children or household members □ □
Other: _______________________ □ □
4. In the past two months, how often has your child walked
to/from school?

Not at all □ □
About once a month □ □
About two or three times a month □ □
Once a week □ □
More than once a week □ □

161

5. In the past two months, how often has your child biked
to/from school?

Not at all □ □
About once a month □ □
About two or three times a month □ □
Once a week □ □
More than once a week □ □
Before
School
After School
6. Does your child participate in any before-or-after school
activities?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes
□ No
→ If yes,
5.1. Where do these activities take place?
At school □ □
Somewhere else in the neighborhood □ □
Somewhere outside the neighborhood □ □
7. About how far is your child’s school from home?
□ Less than ¼ mile □ Greater than 1 mile
□ ¼ ~ ½ mile □ Not sure
□ ½ ~ 1 mile
8. If your child already walks/bikes to/from school ( or if your child were to walk/bike
to/from school), would he or she have to do any of the following? (check as many boxes
as apply)
□ Cross a road with more than 4 lanes of traffic
□ Cross a road at an intersection that doesn’t have a street signal or a stop sign to stop
traffic
□ Walk/bike on the road or on the edge of the road because there is no sidewalk
□ Walk/bike along a road or sidewalk that has traffic moving at a fairly high speed
(more than 30 miles an hour)
□ Walk/bike through areas that are unsafe or walk/bike by buildings or activities that are
undesirable for your child, such as (circle as many items from the examples below);
underpass ● dark alley ● vacant lot ● bar ● parking lot ● freeway on/off
ramp ● liquor store ● abandoned building ● adult shops ● parking lot
abandoned car ● building with broken windows ● areas associated with gang
activities ● graffiti

(Question 9~11) These questions are about what helps you decide how your child travels
to school. Please answer these questions no matter how your child currently travels to
school.
9. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being NOT TRUE AT ALL and 5 being VERY TRUE,
circle the number that best matches your feeling about your child’s travel to/from school.

NOT TRUE VERY
AT ALL TRUE
9.1 Walking/biking to/from school would be
good for my child’s health
1 2 3 4 5

162

NOT TRUE VERY
AT ALL TRUE
9.2 My neighborhood is safe enough for
children to walk/bike to/from school alone
1 2 3 4 5
9.3 I worry about strangers or bullies in the
neighborhood approaching my child if
he/she is walking/biking alone
1 2 3 4 5
9.4 The school is close enough for my child to
walk/bike
1 2 3 4 5
9.5 My child is prepared or old enough to
walk/bike to school
1 2 3 4 5
9.6 Driving my child to/from school is more
convenient/fits my schedule better
1 2 3 4 5
9.7 My child likes to walk/bike to/from school
1 2 3 4 5

10. If your child does not currently walk to/from school, how likely would it be that you
would allow your child to walk to/from school based on the following conditions? (If your
child currently walks to/from school, skip the questions below and go to question 11).

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being VERY UNLIKELY and 5 being VERY LIKELY,
circle the number that best matches your feelings. Would you allow your child to WALK
to/from school if;

VERY VERY
UNLIKELY LIKELY
10.1 …you or an adult you knew walks with
him/her?
1 2 3 4 5
10.2 …he/she was older? 1 2 3 4 5
10.3 …cars were moving slower and drivers
paid attention to pedestrians when they
drove?
1 2 3 4 5
10.4 …he/she didn’t have to cross a busy road? 1 2 3 4 5
10.5 …you knew more people in the
neighborhood?
1 2 3 4 5
10.6 …the school was closer to home? 1 2 3 4 5
10.7 …there were crossing guards at busy
intersections on the way to/from school?
1 2 3 4 5
10.8 …if it was convenient for you to drive by
school on your way to/from work and/or
errands?
1 2 3 4 5
10.9 …other children in the neighborhood
walked to school together
1 2 3 4 5
10.10 …your child could be driven to school? 1 2 3 4 5
10.11 …he/she has a light backpack to carry? 1 2 3 4 5
10.12 …there were neighbors watching out for
your child when he/she walked to/from
school?
1 2 3 4 5
10.13 …there were more Kid Watch volunteers
in the neighborhood?
1 2 3 4 5

163
10. If your child does not currently bike to/from school, how likely would it be that you
would allow your child to walk to/from school based on the following conditions? (If your
child currently bikes to/from school, skip the questions below and go to question 11).

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being VERY UNLIKELY and 5 being VERY LIKELY,
circle the number that best matches your feelings. Would you allow your child to BIKE
to/from school if;

VERY VERY
UNLIKELY LIKELY
11.1 …you or an adult you knew bikes with
him/her?
1 2 3 4 5
11.2 …he/she was older? 1 2 3 4 5
11.3 …cars were moving slower and drivers
paid attention to pedestrians when they
drove?
1 2 3 4 5
11.4 …he/she didn’t have to cross a busy
road?
1 2 3 4 5
11.5 …you knew more people in the
neighborhood?
1 2 3 4 5
11.6 …the school was closer to home? 1 2 3 4 5
11.7 …there were crossing guards at busy
intersections on the way to/from school?
1 2 3 4 5
11.8 …if it was convenient for you to drive
by school on your way to/from work
and/or errands?
1 2 3 4 5
11.9 …other children in the neighborhood
biked to school together
1 2 3 4 5
11.10 …your child could be driven to school? 1 2 3 4 5
11.11 …he/she has a light backpack to carry? 1 2 3 4 5
11.12 …there were neighbors watching out for
your child when he/she biked to/from
school?
1 2 3 4 5
11.13 …there were more Kid Watch volunteers
in the neighborhood?
1 2 3 4 5

(Question 12~25) These last few questions are about yourself and your family. As we
have mentioned previously, all of this information is confidential.

12. How often do you walk in your neighborhood?
□ At least once a day □ A few times a month
□ A few times a week □ Hardly ever
□ Once a week
13. How many people do you know in your neighborhood? (please answer the both 11.1
and 11.2)
13.1 People who are casual acquaintances ______________
13.2. Friends or relatives on whom you can rely in the case of a need or
emergency ________

164

14. Do you participate in any neighborhood associations or
community group activities?
□ Yes □ No
→ If yes,
14.1 What are the names of such associations or groups?
_______________________________________________________
15. What is the sex of your child who brought home this
survey?
□ Male □ Female
16. Which of the following best describes your current status?
□ Single
□ Married
□ Living with a partner
17. Please indicate how many people in your household are of the following age groups?
(include yourself)
□ 0~5 yrs old : ______ □ 17~60 yrs old : ______
□ 6~11 yrs old : ______ □ Older than 60 : ______
□ 12~16 yrs old: ______
18. How many people in your household have a driver’s license? _________
19. On most days, how many cars are there in your household? __________
20. How long have you lived in this neighborhood?
□ Less than 1 year □ More than 10 years
□ 1-5 years □ All my life
□ 6-10 years
21. Were you born in the United States? □ Yes □ No
22. What best describes your educational level?
□ Less than high school □ Bachelor’s degree
□ High school □ Graduate and above
□ Some college
23. How long have you lived in the United States?
□ Less than 1 year □ More than 10 years
□ 1-5 years □ All my life
□ 6-10 years
24. What is your average annual household income?
□ Less than $15,000 □ $55,001-75,000
□ $15,001-35,000 □ More than $75,001
□ $35,001-55,000

Question 25 is on the next page!

165

25. Your child’s school is located at the star on this map. PLEASE PUT AN X IN THE
SQUARE THAT CONTAINS YOUR HOUSE. Do not mark the exact location of your
house. If your house or the street you live on is not on the map, please just write “house
outside the map.”

THANK YOU!

166
Parent Questionnaire (Spanish)

Estimado Padre/Madre de Familia,

Gracias por tomar el tiempo en llenar esta encuesta. Somos investigadores de la
Escuela de Política, Planificación, y Desarrollo en la Universidad del Sur de
California. Estamos estudiando como su niño/a llega a y regresa de la escuela y
como el ambiente de su vecindad apoya el bienestar de niños caminando o llegando
en bicicletas a la escuela.

Por favor de llenar esta encuesta esta noche y mandarlo a la escuela con su
hijo/hija antes del _________.

Respondiendo a estas preguntas se tomara 15 minutos. Si recibe una encuesta de mas
de uno de sus hijos, por favor de llenar y regresar solamente una encuesta. Sus
respuestas son confidenciales y no pedimos por información personal como nombre
y domicilio. Si no se siente cómodo o seguro respondiendo algunas de las preguntas,
simplemente puede pasar a la siguiente pregunta. Esperamos que llene la encuesta y
le agradecemos mucho por su ayuda y cooperación.

Si tiene una pregunta o si prefiere llenar la encuesta por teléfono, por favor de
contactar a Señorita Eleanor Tostado a (213) 740-1461.

Gracias.

Dr. Tridib Banerjee
Professor
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California

167
(Pregunta 1 a 7) Estas preguntas se tratan de como su hijo/a usualmente llega a y regresa
de la escuela. Si la ruta cambia, por favor de responder en términos de la ruta mas
frecuente. Para las preguntas 1 a 5, por favor de seleccionar una caja de cada columna.

A la
Escuela
De la
Escuela
1. ¿Cómo llega usualmente su hijo/a a/de la escuela?
(seleccione todas las cajas que apliquen de las dos columna)

Esta manejado en coche solo o manejado con otras
personas de la casa
□ □
En coche con otros personas que no son personas de
la casa
□ □
Caminado □ □
En bicicleta □ □
En autobús de la escuela □ □
En autobús publico □ □
Otra manera: ____________________________ □ □
2. ¿Cuánto tiempo tarda su hijo/a en llegar a/de la escuela?
Menos de 5 minutos □ □
5 a 10 minutos □ □
11 a 20 minutos □ □
Más de 20 minutos □ □
Usted no sabe □ □
3. ¿Hay adultos que acompañan a su hijo/a por todo o parte
del viaje de su hijo/a a/de la escuela?
□ Sí
□ No
□ Sí
□ No
→ Si la respuesta es sí,
3.1. ¿Quien acompaña a su hijo/a?
Mama □ □
Papa □ □
Otro adulto, pariente o amigo □ □
Hermanos □ □
Amigos de la escuela que viven en el barrio □ □
Otra persona: _______________________ □ □
3.2. ¿Adonde va este adulto usualmente después de
llevar o recoger el niño/a a/de la escuela?

A casa □ □
Al trabajo, que no esta en la casa □ □
De compras o a cumplir otra actividad □ □
A dejar otros niños en la escuela o a dejar
otras personas de la casa al trabajo
□ □
Otra cosa: _______________________ □ □
4. En los últimos dos meses, ¿cuántas veces ha caminado su
hijo/a a/de la escuela?

Ninguna □ □
Aproximadamente una vez al mes □ □
Aproximadamente dos o tres veces al mes □ □
Una vez a la semana □ □
Más de una vez a la semana □ □

168
5. En los últimos dos meses, ¿cuántas veces ha montado
en bicicleta su hijo/a a/de la escuela?

Ninguna □ □
Aproximadamente una vez al mes □ □
Aproximadamente dos o tres veces al mes □ □
Una vez a la semana □ □
Más de una vez a la semana □ □
Antes de la
escuela
Después de
la escuela
6. ¿Participa su hijo/a en actividades antes de o después de
la escuela?
□ Sí
□ No
□ Sí
□ No
→ Si la respuesta es sí,
6.1. ¿Dónde toman lugar estas actividades?
En la escuela □ □
En un lugar en el barrio □ □
En un lugar que no esta en el barrio □ □
7. ¿Qué es la distancia entre la escuela de su hijo/a y su casa?
□ Menos de ¼ milla □ Más de 1 milla
□ ¼ ~ ½ milla □ Usted no sabe
□ ½ ~ 1 milla
8. Si su hijo/a ya camina o monta en bicicleta a/de la escuela (o, si su hijo/a pudiera
caminar o montar en bicicleta a/de la escuela, ¿tendría su hijo/a que hacer alguno de las
siguientes cosas? (seleccione todas las cajas que apliquen)
□ Cruzar una calle que tiene más de 4 carrilles de trafico
□ Cruzar una intersección que no tiene una luz ni un señal para parar trafico
□ Caminar o montar en bicicleta en la calle porque no hay banqueta
□ Caminar o montar en bicicleta en una calle o una banqueta de una calle que tiene
trafico yendo bastante rápido (más de 30 millas a la hora)
□ Caminar o montar en bicicleta pasando áreas que no están seguros o pasando edificios
o actividades que son indeseables para su hijo/a, por ejemplo (dibuje un circulo sobre
todas las cosas que apliquen de los ejemplos dados abajo):
paso inferior ● callejón oscuro ● lote abandonado ● bar ● estacionamiento ●
tienda de licor ● rampa a/de la autopista ● edificios abandonados ● tiendas de
adultos ● coche abandonado ● edificio con ventanas rotas ● áreas asociados con
actividades de pandillas ● areas associated with gang activities ● graffiti
Otra cosa : _____________________________________

(Preguntas 9 a 11) Estas preguntas se tratan de cómo usted decide la manera en que su
hijo/a llega a y regresa de la escuela. Por favor de responder a estas preguntas sin importar
la manera en que su hijo/a actualmente llega a y regresa de la escuela.
9. En una escala de 1 a 5, con 1 siendo NO ES CIERTO PARA NADA y 5 siendo MUY
CIERTO, dibuje un circulo sobre el numero que mejor refleja sus sentimientos sobre la
manera en que su hijo/a llega a/de escuela

169

NO ES MUY
CIERTO CIERTO
9.1 Caminar o montar en bicicleta a/de la
escuela sería bueno para la salud de mi
hijo/a
1 2 3 4 5
9.2 Mi barrio esta bastante seguro para que mi
hijo/a pudiera caminar o montar en
bicicleta sólo a/de la escuela
1 2 3 4 5
9.3 Me preocupa sobre gente desconocido o
gente con malas intenciones acercando a
mi hijo/a si estuviera caminando o
montando en bicicleta sólo
1 2 3 4 5
9.4 La escuela esta ubicada bastante cerca para
que mi hijo/a pudiera caminar o montar en
bicicleta
1 2 3 4 5
9.5 Mi hijo/a esta preparado o es de una edad
suficiente para caminar o montar en
bicicleta a/de la escuela
1 2 3 4 5
9.6 Manejar mi hijo/a a/de la escuela conviene
mejor con mi horario
1 2 3 4 5
9.7 A mi hijo/a le gusta caminar o montar en
bicicleta a/de la escuela
1 2 3 4 5

10. Si su hijo/a actualmente no camina a/de la escuela, ¿qué es la probabilidad de que
usted dejaría a su hijo/a caminar a/de la escuela según las siguientes condiciones? (Si su
hijo/a actualmente camina a/de la escuela, usted puede ir directamente a la pregunta 11).

En una escala de 1 a 5, con 1 siendo NO ES CIERTO PARA NADA y 5 siendo MUY
CIERTO, dibuje un circulo sobre el numero que mejor refleja sus sentimientos sobre la
manera en que su hijo/a llega a/de escuela. ¿Usted dejaría a su hijo/a CAMINAR a/de la
escuela si…

NO ES MUY
CIERTO CIERTO
10.1 …usted o un adulto que usted conoce
caminara con su hijo/a?
1 2 3 4 5
10.2 …su hijo/a tuviera más anos? 1 2 3 4 5
10.3 …los coches se fueran yendo menos
rápido y los conductores se prestaran más
atención en manejar?
1 2 3 4 5
10.4 …su hijo/a no tuviera que cruzar una calle
con mucho trafico?
1 2 3 4 5
10.5 …usted conociera más personas en el
barrio?
1 2 3 4 5
10.6 …la escuela estuviera ubicada más cerca
de la casa?
1 2 3 4 5
10.7 …hubiera guardias para ayudar a su hijo/a
cruzar las intersecciones con alto trafico
en el camino a/de la escuela?
1 2 3 4 5

170

NO ES MUY
CIERTO CIERTO
10.8 …su fuera conveniente para usted parar
en la escuela de su hijo/a en su camino al
trabajo o a hacer otras cosas durante el
día?
1 2 3 4 5
10.9 ...los niños del barrio caminaran juntos
a/de la escuela?
1 2 3 4 5
10.10 …su hijo/a pudiera ser manejado a/de la
escuela?
1 2 3 4 5
10.11 …su hijo/a tuviera una mochilla ligera
para llevar?
1 2 3 4 5
10.12 …hubiera más vecinos echando una
mirada para su hijo/a cuando caminara
a/de la escuela?
1 2 3 4 5
10.13 …hubiera más voluntarios en el barrio del
programa Kid Watch?
1 2 3 4 5

11. Si su hijo/a actualmente no monta en bicicleta a/de la escuela, ¿qué es la probabilidad
de que usted dejaría a su hijo/a montar en bicicleta según las siguientes condiciones?
(Si su hijo/a actualmente monta en bicicleta a/de la escuela, usted puede ir
directamente a la pregunta 12).

En una escala de 1 a 5, con 1 siendo NO ES CIERTO PARA NADA y 5 siendo MUY
CIERTO, dibuje un circulo sobre el numero que mejor refleja sus sentimientos sobre
la manera en que su hijo/a llega a/de escuela. ¿Usted dejaría a su hijo/a MONTAR
EN BICICLETA a/de la escuela si…

NO ES MUY
CIERTO CIERTO
11.1 …usted o un adulto que usted conoce
montara en bicicleta con su hijo/a?
1 2 3 4 5
11.2 …su hijo/a tuviera más anos 1 2 3 4 5
11.3 …los coches se fueran yendo menos
rápido y los conductores se prestaran
más atención en manejar?
1 2 3 4 5
11.4 …su hijo/a no tuviera que cruzar una
calle con mucho trafico?
1 2 3 4 5
11.5 …usted conociera más personas en el
barrio?
1 2 3 4 5
11.6 …la escuela estuviera ubicada más cerca
de la casa?
1 2 3 4 5
11.7 …hubiera guardias para ayudar a su
hijo/a cruzar las intersecciones con alto
trafico en el camino a/de la escuela?
1 2 3 4 5
11.8 …su fuera conveniente para usted parar
en la escuela de su hijo/a en su camino al
trabajo o a hacer otras cosas durante el
día?
1 2 3 4 5

171

NO ES MUY
CIERTO CIERTO
11.9 …los niños del barrio montaran en
bicicleta juntos con su hijo/a a/de la
escuela?
1 2 3 4 5
11.10 …su hijo/a pudiera ser manejado a/de la
escuela?
1 2 3 4 5
11.11 …su hijo/a tuviera una mochilla ligera
para llevar?
1 2 3 4 5
11.12 …hubiera más vecinos echando una
mirada para su hijo/a cuando montara en
bicicleta a/de la escuela?
1 2 3 4 5
11.13 …hubiera más voluntarios en el barrio
del programa Kid Watch?
1 2 3 4 5

(Preguntas 12 a 25) Estas ultimas preguntas se tratan de usted y su familia. Como hemos
dicho antes, toda esta información es confidencial.
5
12. ¿Con qué frecuencia usted camina en su barrio?
□ Una vez al día por lo menos □ Dos o tres veces al mes
□ Dos o tres veces a la semana □ Casi nunca
□ Una vez a la semana
13. ¿Cuántas personas usted conoce en su barrio? (por favor de contestar a 13.1 y 13.2)
13.1 Numero de personas en el barrio que usted conoce ______________
13.2. Numero de personas en el barrio, amigos o parientes, en que usted pudiera
depender en caso de emergencia o otra necesidad________
14. ¿Usted participa en alguna asociación de la vecindad o
otras actividades comunitarias en el barrio?
□ Sí □ No
→ Si la respuesta es sí,
14.1 ¿Cómo se llaman estas asociaciones o actividades comunitarias?
______________________________________________________
15. ¿Qué es el genero de su hijo/a que se trajó esta encuesta? □ Hombre □ Mujer
16. ¿Cuál de las siguientes opciones mejor refleja su estatus civil?
□ Soltero/a
□ Casado/a
□ Viviendo con mi pareja
17. Por favor de indicar el numero de personas viviendo en su casa que están en las
siguientes categorías de edad (incluyendo usted en el numero):
□ 0 a 5 anos: ______ □ 17 a 60 anos: ______
□ 6 a 11 anos: ______ □ Más de 60 anos: ______
□ 12 a 16 anos: ______
18. ¿Cuántas personas viviendo en su casa tienen licencia para manejar? _________
19. Usualmente, ¿cuántos coches están en su casa? __________
20. ¿Cuántos anos ha vivido usted en este barrio?
□ Menos de 1 ano □ Más de 10 anos
□ 1 a 5 anos □ Toda mi vida
□ 6 a 10 anos

172
21. ¿Usted nació en los Estados Unidos? □ Sí □ No
22. ¿Cuál descripción abajo mejor refleja su nivel de educación?
□ No gradué de la prepa □Bachelor’s
□ Gradué de la prepa □ Master’s o más (JD, MD, PhD, etc.)
□ Fui a la universidad, pero no
cumplí

23. ¿Cuántos anos usted ha vivido en los Estados Unidos?
□ Menos de 1 ano □ Más de 10 anos
□ 1 a 5 anos □ Toda mi vida
□ 6 a 10 anos
24. ¿Qué es el ingreso anual de su casa?
□ Menos de $15,000 □ $55,001 a $75,000
□ $15,001 a $35,000 □ Más de $75,001
□ $35,001 a $55,000

¡Pregunta 25 esta en la próxima pagina!

173
25. La escuela de su hijo/a esta ubicada donde hay la estrella en este mapa. POR FAVOR
DE PONER UN X EN EL CUADRO DONDE ESTA SU CASA. No marque la localización
exacta de su casa. Si su casa o la calle donde usted vive no esta en esta mapa, por favor de
escribir “house outside the map.”

¡MUCHISIMAS GRACIAS!

174
Appendix C

Focus Group Interview Questions/ Questionnaire (English)

Dear Kid Watch volunteers,

We are interested in keeping children safe in the neighborhood as they walk to
and from school. Please take a few minutes of your time to complete this
questionnaire and return it to us today.

1. Please tell us about your experience in participating in the Kid Watch
program?

2. What are the major safety issues in this neighborhood?

3. Do you think Kid Watch program needs assistance from other sources
(supplemented with other programs/organizations/agencies)?

4. Children have mentioned the presence of gangs and drug activity in the
neighborhood. How does this affect their physical activity? What
suggestions do you have to mitigate such effects?

5. Please share needs that should be addressed to improve the neighborhood’s
built environment and social environment.

6. How can the Kid Watch program be improved or made better?

7. What three things would you recommend to improve safety of children
walking to/from school in your neighborhood?

8. In your opinion, how effective is the Kid Watch program? And Why? Should
the Kid Watch program area be expanded, and why?

9. How do parents perceive the Kid Watch program? Do you think more or less
children are walking now as a result of Kid Watch?

Thank You!

175
Focus Group Interview Questions/ Questionnaire (Spanish)

Estimados voluntarios de Kid Watch,
Nosotros estamos interesados en preservar la seguridad de los niños de la
comunidad en su camino a la escuela. Tenga la bondad de tomar unos minutos de
su tiempo para responder este cuestionario y entreguenos sus respuestas hoy.

1. Por favor cuentenos sus experiencias al participar en el programa Kid Watch?

2. Cuales son las cuestiones de seguridad más preocupantes en la comunidad?

3. Cree Ud. que el programa Kid Watch necesite apoyo de otros grupos que
puedan brindar más programas, organizaciones y agencias de servicios?

4. Los niños han reconocido la presencia de pandillas y la venta de drogas en la
comunidad. Como es que esto afecta su actividad física? Que sugerencias
tiene para solucionar este problema?

5. Por favor comparta con nosotros obstaculos que dificultan el mejoramiento
del ambiente estructural y social de la comunidad.

6. Como podría mejorar o perfeccionarse el programa Kid Watch?

7. Denos tres recomendaciones para mejorar la seguridad de los niños
caminando de la casa a la escuela en su comunidad?

8. Que opina de la eficiencia del programa Kid Watch? Debería extenderse el
programa Kid Watch? Explique sus razones.

9. Como padre, cual es su percepción del programa Kid Watch? Cree que ha
incrementado o bajado el número de niños que caminan debido al programa
Kid Watch?

Gracias !

176
Appendix D

Built Environment Measures
(Scale of measurement: 0.25x0.25 grid cell; *= street segment)

Measure Definition Data Source(s)
Land use

1. Net residential
density
Number of residential units divided by
residential use area (ea/acres)
Los Angeles County
parcel- level land
use database
2. Land use mix Evenness of distribution of square footage of
development across single family residential,
multi-family residential, commercial,
recreational, institutional, and manufacturing
/industrial use
Los Angeles County
parcel- level land
use database
3. Retail floor
area ratio

Retail building floor area divided by retail use
area (sq. ft.)
Los Angeles County
parcel- level land
use database
Street pattern
4. Average block
size
Sum of block areas divided by the total
number of blocks within the unit area (acres)
City of Los
Angeles, Zoning
Information and
Map Access System
(Zimas)
5. Street
connectivity
Number of intersections divided by the unit
area (ea/sq. km)
maps.live.com
6. Percentage
street area
Proportion of street areas within the unit area
(%)
Zimas
Traffic environment
7. Traffic
capacity
Sum of distance weighted traffic lanes (street
length x traffic lanes) divided by the total
street length within the unit area (ea)
Zimas;
maps.live.com
8. Traffic speed Sum of distance weighted traffic speed (street
length x traffic speed) divided by the total
street length within the unit area (mph)
SCAG/ LADOT
9. Transit stop
density
Number of transit stops in the unit area (ea) SCAG/ LADOT
Pedestrian features
10. Streetlight
Coverage
Number of streetlights divided by the total
street length within the unit area (ea/mi.)
LA County public
works
11. Sidewalk
width*
Proportion of street segments with sidewalk
width over 5ft of the total street segments
traveled in the unit area (%)
Field audit

177
12. Pedestrian
amenity*
Proportion of street segments with pedestrian
amenities or street furniture of the total street
segments traveled in the unit area (%)
Field audit

13. Sidewalk
Maintenance*
Proportion of street segments with sidewalk in
good condition of the total street segments
traveled in the unit area (%)
Field audit
14. Sidewalk
Obstruction*

Proportion of street segments with sidewalk
with no permanent obstruction (i.e., trees,
signage, etc.) of the total street segments
traveled in the unit area (%)
Field audit
15. Natural
surveillance*

Proportion of street segments with sidewalk
visually assessable on the street level (e.g.,
window at street level, active use on the
ground floor) of the total street segments
traveled in the unit area (%)
Field audit
Aesthetic

16. Cleanness* Proportion of street segments with sidewalk
with no litter of the total street segments
traveled in the unit area (%)
Field audit
17. Abandoned
or vacant lot*
Proportion of street segments with no
abandoned buildings or vacant lot of the total
street segments traveled in the unit area (%)
Field audit
18. Building
maintenance*
Proportion of street segments with no
buildings in need of repairs of the total street
segments traveled in the unit area (%)
Field audit
Social milieu

19. Crime
density
Number of reported crimes in the unit area LAPD Compstat
(04/2007-10/2007)
20. Kid Watch
sites
Number of Kid Watch volunteer sites in the
unit area
USC Civic and
Community
Relations, 2005

178
Appendix E

Route Audit Check Sheet

Date:
Area:
Observer:
Time:
start end

Segment ~
MEASURES Coding
N/E S/W
1 What is the effective width of the pedestrian path
or sidewalk?
higher than minimum
standard (> 5ft)=1; at
or less than minimum
standard=0
2 What is the condition or maintenance of the
pedestrian path or sidewalk?
moderate or good=1;
poor or in need of
repair =0
3 Are there any features that obstruct the path? (e.g.,
pole, sign, trash can, greenery, parked car, etc.)
yes=1; no=0 (rec.
yes=0, no=1)

4 Are there furniture/sidewalk amenities on this
segment? (e.g., bench, bike rack, newspaper stand,
public garbage bin, street vending machine)
yes=1; no=0

5 Is there a bus stop on the segment? yes=1; no=0

6 Are there measures on this segment that could
slow down traffic? (e.g., speed bump or humps;
raised crosswalk; dip; curb extension; median, etc.)
yes=1; no=0

7 Are there traffic/pedestrian signals/signs or
systems on this segment ? (e.g., traffic signal, stop
sign, yield sign, pedestrian activated signal,
pedestrian crossing sign, etc.)
yes=1; no=0

8 Are there abandoned buildings or vacant lots on
this segment?
yes=1; no=0 (rec.
yes=0, no=1)

9 To what extent does this segment encourages "eyes
on the street"? (e.g., windows at street level, active
use on the street level, proportion of blank wall,
etc.)
moderate or good=1;
poor =0

10 Does this segment exhibit mixed-use
development?
yes=1; no=0

11 Are there any security measures displayed on this
segment? (e.g., chain- linked fence, gate,
surveillance camera etc.)
yes=1; no=0

12 Are the buildings on this segment well-
maintained?
yes=1; no=0

13 Is there a lot of litter on the sidewalks? yes=1; no=0

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A capability-based approach to defining performance characteristics of the built environment

PDF

From “squatters” to citizens? Slum dwellers, developers, land sharing and power in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

PDF

Informal consent: the complexities of public participation in post-civil war Lebanon

PDF

Structure, agency, and the Kuznets Curve: observations and implications for sustainability planning in U.S. cities

PDF

Two-way bilingual education in a post-1998 California elementary school

PDF

The effects of campus friendships and perceptions of racial climates on the sense of belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students

PDF

Outsourcing for school outcomes: a multi-case study examination of outsourced and in-house literacy coaching models

PDF

Satisfaction with local "public goods" and services: the effects of household income and privatization in southern California

PDF

Factors affecting city government emergency preparedness

PDF

Order before zoning: land use regulation in Los Angeles, 1880-1915

PDF

Creating cities and citizens: municipal boundaries, place entrepreneurs, and the production of race in Los Angeles county, 1926-1978

PDF

Beyond spatial mismatch: immigrant employment in urban America

PDF

Passing CAHSEE but failing math and English: what best predicts high school classroom achievement?

PDF

The production of public spaces: design dialectics and pedagogy

PDF

Media reinvented: the transformation of news in a networked society

PDF

Older adults with visual impairments: the role of health dimensions in predicting falls

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

The financial crisis: signaling a new order of communications

PDF

Sustaining success toward closing the achievement gap: a case study of one urban high school

PDF

Globalization in curricular elements and instructional practices in California schools: A case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Uhm, Jung A (author)

Core Title Walkability as 'freedom': the ecology of school journey in inner city Los Angeles neighborhoods

School School of Policy, Planning, and Development

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Planning

Degree Conferral Date 2008-12

Publication Date 10/17/2008

Defense Date 06/05/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag capability,Children,inner-city neighborhood,OAI-PMH Harvest,perception,school travel,walkability

Place Name California (states), educational facilities: Foshay Learning Center (geographic subject), educational facilities: Lenicia B. Weemes Elementary School (geographic subject), educational facilities: Norwood Street Elementary School (geographic subject), educational facilities: St. Agnes Parish School (geographic subject), educational facilities: Vermont Avenue Elementary School (geographic subject), Los Angeles (city or populated place)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Banerjee, Tridib (committee chair), Irazabal, Clara (committee member), Stoner, Madeleine (committee member)

Creator Email j_uhm@hotmail.com,uhm@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1671

Unique identifier UC1194217

Identifier etd-Uhm-2224 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-120435 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1671 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Uhm-2224.pdf

Dmrecord 120435

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Uhm, Jung A

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu