Table 1.
Description and distribution of objectively measured environmental variables by distance to school
| Variables | Description | Data | Classification | Percentage prevalence (n) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| source | Distance <1km | Distance >1km | ||||
| Neighbourhood (Area within 800m around child’s home) | ||||||
| Road outside child’s home | A major or minor road adjacent to the child’s home | A | A/B/Minor | 30.5 (232) | 31.0 (388) | n.s |
| Local & private | 69.5 (528) | 69.0 (864) | ||||
| Road density | Total road lengths divided by neighbourhood area | A | Lowest road density | 13.2 (100) | 32.0 (401) | 0.001 |
| Second quartile | 30.5 (232) | 21.8 (273) | ||||
| Third quartile | 28.4 (216) | 22.9 (287) | ||||
| Highest road density | 27.9 (212) | 23.2 (291) | ||||
| Proportion of primary (A) | Length of A roads divided by total road length | A | No A roads | 56.8 (432) | 58.1 (728) | n.s |
| roads | Some A roads | 43.2 (328) | 41.9 (524) | |||
| Building density | Total area of buildings divided by neighbourhood area | B & C | Lowest building density | 13.2 (100) | 32.2 (403) | 0.001 |
| Second quartile | 29.5 (224) | 22.3 (279) | ||||
| Third quartile | 29.2 (222) | 22.4 (281) | ||||
| Highest building density | 28.2 (214) | 23.0 (289) | ||||
| Streetlight density | Number of streetlights divided by total road length | D | Lowest streetlight density | 17.0 (129) | 31.9 (399) | 0.001 |
| Second quartile | 33.9 (258) | 17.6 (220) | ||||
| Third quartile | 22.8 (173) | 26.4 (330) | ||||
| Highest streetlight density | 26.3 (200) | 26.4 (303) | ||||
| Traffic accidents per km | Number of fatal or serious road traffic accidents between | E | None | 30.8 (234) | 41.2 (516) | 0.001 |
| 2002-2005 divided by total road length | Any | 69.2 (526) | 58.8 (736) | |||
| Pavement density | Area of pavements divided by total road length | B | Lowest pavement density | 13.2 (100) | 32.1 (402) | 0.001 |
| Second quartile | 25.9 (197) | 24.6 (308) | ||||
| Third quartile | 29.2 (222) | 19.6 (246) | ||||
| Highest pavement density | 31.7 (241) | 23.6 (296) | ||||
| Effective walkable area | Total neighbourhood area (the area that can be reached via | A | Lowest EFA | 23.2 (176) | 26.1 (327) | 0.001 |
| (EFA) | the street network within 800m from the home) divided by | Second quartile | 28.5 (216) | 22.8 (285) | ||
| the potential walkable area (the area generated using a | Third quartile | 28.3 (215) | 23.0 (288) | |||
| circular buffer with a radius of 800m from the home). | Highest EFA | 20.0 (152) | 28.1 (351) | |||
| Connected node ratio | Number of junctions divided by number of junctions and cul- | A | <0.7 Low connectivity | 13.2 (89) | 8.3 (169) | 0.001 |
| (CNR) | de-sacs | >0.7 High connectivity1 | 88.2 (671) | 91.7 (1083) | ||
| Junction density | Number of junctions divided by total neighbourhood area | A | Lowest junction density | 24.2 (184) | 26.0 (326) | 0.001 |
| Second quartile | 32.5 (247) | 20.2 (253) | ||||
| Third quartile | 30.9 (235) | 21.2 (265) | ||||
| Highest junction density | 12.4 (94) | 32.6 (408) | ||||
| Land use mix | Proportion of each land use2 squared and summed | C & F | Highest land use mix | 27.9 (212) | 23.2 (291) | 0.001 |
| Second quartile | 29.1 (221) | 22.5 (282) | ||||
| Third quartile | 29.9 (227) | 22.0 (276) | ||||
| Lowest land use mix | 13.2 (100) | 32.2 (403) | ||||
| Socioeconomic deprivation | Population weighted scores for neighbourhood G Least deprived | G | Least deprived | 25.9 (197) | 24.4 (305) | 0.004 |
| Second quartile | 21.4 (163) | 27.2 (341) | ||||
| Third quartile | 24.1 (183) | 25.6 (320) | ||||
| Most deprived | 28.6 (217) | 22.8 (286) | ||||
| Urban-rural status | Urban-rural classification of child’s home address | H | Urban | 43.4 (330) | 37.1 (795) | 0.001 |
| Town and Fringe | 34.7 (264) | 24.6 (308) | ||||
| Village | 21.8 (166) | 38.3 (479) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Route (Area within a 100m buffer of the shortest route to school) | ||||||
| Streetlight density | Number of streetlights within 100m of route divided by | D | Lowest streetlight density | 46.2 (351) | 26.2 (328) | 0.001 |
| route length | Second quartile | 6.8 (52) | 22.0 (276) | |||
| Third quartile | 18.6 (141) | 28.8 (361) | ||||
| Highest streetlight density | 28.4 (216) | 22.9 (287) | ||||
| Traffic accidents per km | Number of fatal or serious road traffic accidents between | E | None | 72.8 (553) | 30.5 (380) | 0.001 |
| 2002-2005 within 100m of route divided by route length | Any | 27.2 (207) | 69.5 (866) | |||
| Main road en route | Presence of primary (A) road as part of route | A | No | 86.8 (660) | 49.1 (615) | 0.001 |
| Yes | 13.2 (100) | 50.9 (737) | ||||
| Main or Secondary road en | Presence of primary (A) or secondary (B) road as part of | A | No | 77.1 (586) | 33.2 (416) | 0.001 |
| route | route | Yes | 22.9 (174) | 66.8 (836) | ||
| Route length ratio | Route length divided by the straight line distance between | A | ≤1.6 Low directness | 26.6 (202) | 26.4 (330) | n.s |
| the home and school | <1.6 High3 | 73.4 (558) | 73.6 (922) | |||
| Percentage of route to | Proportion of route which passes through urban area | H | <100% urban | 11.7 (89) | 59.3 (742) | 0.001 |
| school within an urban area | 100% urban | 88.3 (671) | 40.7 (510) | |||
| Land use mix | Proportion of each land use2 within 100m of route squared | C & F Highest land use mix | Highest land use mix | 27.9 (212) | 23.2 (291) | 0.001 |
| and summed | Second quartile | 29.1 (221) | 22.5 (282) | |||
| Third quartile | 29.9 (227) | 22.0 (276) | ||||
| Lowest land use mix | 13.2 (100) | 32.2 (403) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| School | ||||||
| Travel plan | Presence of school has a travel plan (a formal document, | I | No | 15.0 (114) | 16.5 (206) | n.s |
| which identifies ways to encourage walking, cycling or use | Yes | 85.0 (646) | 83.5 (1046) | |||
| of public transport to school) | ||||||
| Walking bus | Presence of walking bus (where a group of children walk to | I | No | 95.8 (728) | 95.8 (1200) | n.s |
| school along a route accompanied by adults, picking up | Yes | 4.2 (32) | 4.2 (52) | |||
| ‘Walk to School’ initiative | The school has a walk to school initiative (period during | I | No | 31.3 (238) | 27.9 (347) | n.s |
| which children are encouraged to walk to school) | Yes | 68.7 (522) | 72.3 (905) | |||
| Pedestrian training | The school offers pedestrian training | I | No | 59.2 (450) | 55.6 (696) | n.s |
| Yes | 39.8 (302) | 44.4 (547) | ||||
| Entrance for | The school has separate entrance(s) for pedestrians and | I | No | 26.6 (202) | 25.9 (324) | n.s |
| pedestrians/cyclists | cyclists | Yes | 72.1 (548) | 72.4 (906) | ||
| Lollypop person | The school has a lollypop person (road crossing guard/school | I | No | 54.2 (412) | 63.3 (793) | 0.001 |
| crossing supervisor/school road patrol) | Yes | 43.4 (330) | 35.5 (445) | |||
| Cycle racks | The school has cycle racks for use by children | J | No | 10.8 (82) | 12.3 (154) | n.s |
| Yes | 89.2 (678) | 87.7 (1098) | ||||
| Land use mix around the | Single or mixed land use surrounding school | J | Single land use | 70.4 (535) | 70.1 (878) | n.s |
| school | Mixed land use | 29.6 (225) | 29.9 (374) | |||
| Pavements | Pavements (sidewalks) visible from the school entrance | J | None/On one side | 86.0 (653) | 65.4 (819) | 0.001 |
| On both sides | 14.1 (107) | 34.6 (433) | ||||
| On road/shared cycle paths | Cycle paths visible from the school entrance | J | No | 87.6 (666) | 92.1 (1153) | 0.004 |
| Yes | 12.3 (94) | 7.9 (99) | ||||
| Traffic calming | Traffic calming measures visible from the school entrance | J | No | 58.9 (448) | 69.9 (872) | 0.001 |
| Yes | 41.1 (312) | 30.4 (380) | ||||
| Pedestrian crossing | Pedestrian crossing visible from the school entrance | J | No | 89.6 (681) | 93.7 (1173) | 0.001 |
| Yes | 10.4 (79) | 6.3 (79) | ||||
A OS Integrated Transport Network, B OS Mastermap, C Address Layer 2, D Local Authority, E Norfolk & Suffolk Constabulary, F Land Cover 2000, G Index of Multiple Deprivation, H Urban-rural classification, I Teacher Questionnaire, J School grounds audit.
n.s not significant. P values indicate the differences in neighbourhood, route, and school categorical measures between those children who lived more or less than 1km from school.
1
Connectivity; Classification previously used by Schlossberg et al., (2005).
2
Seventeen different land uses were classified: farmland, woodland, grassland, uncultivated land, other urban, beach, marshland, sea, small settlement, private gardens, parks, residential, commercial, multiple use buildings, other buildings, unclassified buildings and roads. This score is also known as the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index developed by Rodriguez and Song (2005)
3
Route length ratio; Classification previously used by Dill (2004)