See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311713601

The Threshold Distance Associated With Walking From Home to School

Article  in  Health Education & Behavior · December 2016

DOI: 10.1177/1090198116688429

CITATIONS READS
66 2,506

8 authors, including:

Emilio Villa-González Milkana Borges-Cosic

University of Granada University of Granada
108 PUBLICATIONS   1,016 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   633 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Manuel Herrador-Colmenero Francisco B Ortega

University of Granada University of Granada
71 PUBLICATIONS   791 CITATIONS    608 PUBLICATIONS   35,357 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Congress of Interdisciplinary Physical Prevention & Rehabilitation View project

The FLAMENCO Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emilio Villa-González on 19 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

688429
research-article2017
HEBXXX10.1177/1090198116688429Health Education & BehaviorRodríguez-López et al.

Article
Health Education & Behavior

The Threshold Distance Associated With 1­–10

© 2017 Society for Public
Health Education
Walking From Home to School Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1090198116688429
https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198116688429
journals.sagepub.com/home/heb

Carlos Rodríguez-López, MSc1, Zeus M. Salas-Fariña, MSc1,

Emilio Villa-González, PhD1,2, Milkana Borges-Cosic, MSc1,
Manuel Herrador-Colmenero, MSc1, Jesús Medina-Casaubón, PhD1,
Francisco B. Ortega, PhD1, and Palma Chillón, PhD1

Abstract
Active commuting to school has health implications among young people. We aimed to (a) examine the patterns of commuting
to school in children and adolescents regarding gender and area of residence, (b) study the association between distance from
home to school and mode of commuting, and (c) identify the threshold distance below which young people are more likely to
walk to school. A total of 6,004 students aged 7 to 18 years from Spain participated in this study. Mode of commuting was self-
reported and distance was objectively measured using Google Maps software. Associations were examined using binary logistic
regression and receiver operating characteristic curves analysis. Around 67% of children and 60% of adolescents commuted
to school actively (mainly walking). The threshold distance for walking to school was 875 m, 0.54 miles, in children, and it was
higher among urban (1,250 m, 0.78 miles) than in rural participants (675 m, 0.42 miles). The threshold distance for walking to
school was 1,350 m, 0.84 miles, in adolescents, and it was lower among urban (1,350 m, 0.84 miles) than in rural participants
(1,550 m, 0.96 miles). Future interventions on active commuting to school should consider this threshold distance, and chances
of promoting an active commuting to school could have as a goal the increase of this threshold distance.

Keywords
active transport, adolescence, children, distance, health, physical activity

Promoting daily physical activities, such as active commut-
ing to school (ACS)—walking or cycling—may have impor-
tant health implications for young people. ACS provides an
opportunity for increasing the daily physical activity level
(Chillón et al., 2010; Cooper et al., 2006; Larouche, Saunders,
Faulkner, Colley, & Tremblay, 2014). Moreover, it has been
associated with a healthier body composition (Larouche
et al., 2014; Lubans, Boreham, Kelly, & Foster, 2011) and
higher cardiorespiratory fitness levels among young people
(Chillón, Ortega, Ruiz, et al., 2011; Cooper, Andersen,
Wedderkopp, Page, & Froberg, 2005; Ortega, Ruiz, Castillo,
& Sjostrom, 2008), mainly when cycling (Chillón et al.,
2012; Cooper et al., 2006; Ostergaard, Kolle, Steene-
Johannessen, Anderssen, & Andersen, 2013).
In spite of the importance of ACS, international longitudi-
nal studies have reported a drastic decline of the rate of ACS
among children and adolescents over the past years (Buliung,
Mitra, & Faulkner, 2009; Chillón et al., 2013; McDonald,
2007). Studying the correlates of ACS and targeting them in
intervention studies might help reduce the evident decrease
of this behavior.
Several studies have examined the personal, family, social,
and environmental correlates of ACS in youth (Larsen et al.,
2009; Mandic et al., 2015; Panter, Jones, van Sluijs, & Griffin,
2010; Timperio et al., 2006). Age (Mandic et al., 2015;
Timperio et al., 2006) and gender (Larsen et al., 2009; Panter
et al., 2010) of the young people are personal characteristics
that have been shown to influence the rates of ACS, where
adolescents and boys were more likely to actively commute
to school than children and girls respectively. Moreover, the
area of residence (urban and rural) might be an environmental
correlate of ACS. Previous evidence suggested that young
people living in rural areas were less active than those living
in urban areas (Babey, Hastert, Huang, & Brown, 2009;
Loucaides, Plotnikoff, & Bercovitz, 2007; Merom, Tudor-
Locke, Bauman, & Rissel, 2006). In addition, several previ-
ous studies have shown that the distance from home to school
is the strongest predictor of ACS in school-age students
1
University of Granada, Granada, Spain
2
University of Almería, Almería, Spain
Corresponding Author:
Carlos Rodríguez-López, Department of Physical Education and Sport,
Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Carretera de Alfacar s/n,
18071, Granada, Spain.
Email: crdguez@ugr.es
2 Health Education & Behavior 
(Chillón, Panter, Corder, Jones, & Van Sluijs, 2015; Davison,
Werder, & Lawson, 2008; McDonald, 2007; Timperio et al.,
2006), with shorter distances associated with higher rates of
active travel (D’Haese, De Meester, De Bourdeaudhuij,
Deforche, & Cardon, 2011; Mandic et al., 2015; Pont, Ziviani,
Wadley, Bennett, & Abbott, 2009). And it is also associated
with changes in active commuting: Children who lived less
than 1 km from school were more likely to take up and main-
tain active commuting, even more likely to increase it (Hume
et al., 2009; Panter, Corder, Griffin, Jones, & van Sluijs,
2013). Previous evidence is available on the current distance
that children are willing to walk to school. A distance from
760 m to 1,500 m among Australian children (Merom et al.,
2006), 1,500 m among Belgian children (D’Haese et al.,
2011), 2,000 m among Belgian adolescents (Van Dyck, De
Bourdeaudhuij, Cardon, & Deforche, 2010), and 2,400 m
among Irish adolescents (Nelson, Foley, O’Gorman, Moyna,
& Woods, 2008) has been evidenced as a walkable distance to
commute to school. Nonetheless, how far is the distance that
children from Spain are willing to walk to school and if this
distance changes regarding gender and area of residence is
unknown. Taking into account that ACS is a complex behav-
ior influenced by multiple factors at different levels of the
person–environment system, and moreover, it has several
health benefits for the public health (Larouche et al., 2014;
Lee, Orenstein, & Richardson, 2008; Mandic et al., 2015), it
is of interest to conduct research studies that help policy mak-
ers to implement effective strategies on ACS.
The aims of this study were (a) to examine the patterns of
commuting to school in children and adolescents regarding
gender and area of residence in a relatively large sample of
children and adolescents from Spain; (b) to analyze the asso-
ciation between the distance from home to school and mode
of commuting to school (i.e., active vs. passive) and whether
this association differs by gender and area of residence; (c) to
identify the threshold distance below which young people
are more likely to walk to school and whether such threshold
distances differs by gender and area of residence.
Method
Study Sample and Design
A cross-sectional study was carried out during November
2012. Young people aged 7 to 18 years, belonging to 39
schools from the southeast of Spain (cities of Granada,
Almería, and Murcia) were invited to participate in the study.
Schools were recruited as a sample of convenience and
included both primary schools (children) and secondary
schools (adolescents). A number of 6,004 students accepted
to participate and the inclusion criteria was to have com-
pleted data on the mode of commuting to school and provide
the information from the family postal address to calculate
the distance from home to school. Localities where partici-
pants lived were classified as urban areas ≥20,000 residents,
and rural areas <20,000 residents (Chillón, Ortega, Ferrando,
& Casajus, 2011; Gropp, Pickett, & Janssen, 2012).
The research ethics committee from the University of
Granada approved the study and informed consent procedure
(Case No. 817). Every school involved in the study was
informed about the purpose of it. Each school performed the
required process to inform the students and parents and to
have their acceptance and written consent.
Mode of Commuting To/From School. Students completed a
self-reported questionnaire, with the help of the teacher,
whose questions have been proposed as the most appropriate
measurement for asking about mode of commuting to school
after reviewing 158 studies (Herrador-Colmenero, Perez-
Garcia, Ruiz, & Chillón, 2014). There were four questions:
(a) the usual mode of commuting to school, (b) the usual
mode of commuting from school, (c) the weekly mode of
commuting to school, and (d) the weekly mode of commuting
from school, from Monday 19th to Friday 23rd of November.
The answer options were walk, bike, motorbike, car, bus. A
dichotomous variable was obtained from the question about
the usual mode of commuting to and from school, where
walking and cycling were categorized as “active commut-
ing,” and the use of car, motorbike, or bus as “passive com-
muting.” Those who were active on at least one trip (to or
from school), were categorized as active; those who were pas-
sive on both ways were categorized as passive. Most active
commuters were walkers (bikers were less than 0.3% of par-
ticipants); therefore, a dichotomous variable, walkers versus
passive commuters, was created using the same process and
deleting those who biked, for studying the walkable distance.
Three scale variables were obtained by calculating the num-
ber of active travels in the week on the way to school (0 to 5
journeys), on the way back from school (0 to 5 journeys), and
in the overall week (0 to 10 journeys). Additionally, sociode-
mographic data about gender, age, city, and family home
address were reported in the questionnaire.
Distance From Home to School.  The objective measure of the
commuting distance from home to school for each partici-
pant was estimated selecting the shortest walking network
path between the home address and the school using Google
Maps software. Only in case where it failed to recognize
the address, Via Michelin software was used to locate the
address and it was then manually extrapolated to Google
Maps software. According to previous studies (Chillón et al.,
2015; Chillón, Molina- García, Castillo, & Queralt, 2016),
the 10 deciles of the distance from home to school were cal-
culated and a categorical distance variable including these
points was created. The walking distance from home to
school (i.e., distance for those participants who only walked)
Rodríguez-López et al. 3
was calculated. The distance was collected and expressed in
meters.
Statistical Analyses
Since previous results yielded that there are significant dif-
ferences between children and adolescents regarding the
behavior of ACS and its potential predictors (Faulkner,
Buliung, Flora, & Fusco, 2009; Hume et al., 2009; Sterdt,
Liersch, & Walter, 2014), statistical analyses were performed
separately for children and adolescents. Moreover, prelimi-
nary results in the current study showed high significant dif-
ferences between children and adolescents for ACS.
Associations of sociodemographic characteristics and mode
of commuting with gender (girls vs. boys) and area of resi-
dence (urban vs. rural) were studied using t tests for normal
continuous variables, nonparametric tests for nonnormal
continuous variables (i.e., Mann–Whitney test), and χ2 tests
for categorical variables. The influence of the distance on the
association between mode of commuting to school with gen-
der and area of residence was studied using binary logistic
regression, separately for children and adolescents. Mode of
commuting (walking vs. passive) was included as the depen-
dent variable; gender and area of residence were included as
categorical exposure variables in the Model 1, and addition-
ally, the distance from home to school was included as a new
exposure variable in Model 2. Both models were adjusted by
age and school. The threshold distance for walking was cal-
culated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC)
curve analyses. It has been widely used in various scientific
fields in situations where the evaluation of discrimination
performance is of concern for the researchers (Komori &
Eguchi, 2010). The distance from home to school and the
dichotomous variable, walk versus passive, were included.
The higher area under the curve (ranking from 0 to 1), the
more discriminatory is the test. Using the sensitivity and
specificity data provided by the ROC curves, the Youden
index, which corresponds to the maximum vertical distance
between the ROC curve and the diagonal line was calculated
(Schisterman, Perkins, Liu, & Bondell, 2005), and corre-
sponded to the distance (i.e., threshold distance) that best
discriminates walker from passive commuters. ROC curves
were calculated for gender and area of residence, separately
for children and adolescents. Two additional analyses were
performed to study if the distance from home to school was
age-dependent: a nonparametric test for the distance from
home to school between children and adolescents and ROC
curves for age within the adolescence (i.e., 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17-18 years). All analyses were performed with SPSS V.
21.0, and a significance level of p < .05 was set.
Results
After applying the inclusion criteria, the initial sample was
reduced to 5,998 participants: 1,291 belonged to primary
schools (children aged 7-11 years), with 662 girls and 1,037
students from urban areas, and 4,707 belonged to secondary
schools (adolescents aged 12-18 years), with 2,329 girls and
3,028 students from urban areas.
Table 1 presents descriptive characteristics of the sample
and differences of sociodemographic variables and mode of
commuting to school. Sixty-seven percent of the children
and 60% of the adolescents actively commuted to school.
There were no significant differences between ACS and gen-
der neither in children nor in adolescents (boys were slightly
more likely active commuters to school than girls). There
were significant differences between ACS and area of resi-
dence in children and adolescents, where students from
urban areas were more likely active commuters to school
than those from rural areas. The average distance from home
to school was 650 m for children and 1,000 m for adoles-
cents. There were significant differences for distance, since it
was higher in students from rural areas (compared with those
from urban areas) in both children and adolescents. Moreover,
preliminary results in the current study showed a highly sig-
nificant difference between children and adolescents for
ACS (67% and 60% respectively, p < .001) and additional
results showed a highly significant difference between chil-
dren and adolescents for distance from home to school (650
m and 1,000 m respectively, p < .001).
The influence of the distance on the association between
walking to school and gender and area of residence is shown
in Table 2. Regarding children, there were no differences for
gender, and there were significant differences for area of resi-
dence in Model 1. Urban children walked more likely to
school than rural children and this association remained con-
stant when the distance from home to school was included in
Model 2, although it was not significant. Regarding adoles-
cents, there were no differences for gender, and there were
significant differences for area of residence in Model 1 but not
in Model 2. Urban adolescents walked more likely to school
than rural adolescents, but this association inversed when the
distance from home to school was included in Model 2,
although it was not significant. Furthermore, preliminary
results showed that adolescents seem to walk less likely to
school than children, but this association inversed when the
distance from home to school was included (data not shown).
Figure 1 shows the percentage of walkers and passive
commuters for each distance from home to school, sepa-
rately for children and adolescents. As expected, the percent-
age of walker commuters to school decreased when
increasing the distance. Regarding children, the distance
where the number of walking commuters exceed the number
of passive commuters corresponded to a distance from 1,001
m to 1,400 m. This trend occurred between 1,001 m and
1,400 m for both girls and boys, and for urban students, and
between 651 m to 750 m for rural students. Concerning ado-
lescents, the distance where the number of walking commut-
ers exceed the number of passive commuters in the whole
sample corresponded to a distance from 1,001 m to 1,300 m.
4
Table 1.  Descriptive Characteristics of Sociodemographic Variables (Age, City, Distance, and Walking Distance From Home to School) and Commuting to School by Gender and
Area of Residence in Children and Adolescents.
Gender Area of residence

All Female Male Urban Rural

x ± SD/n (%)/m x ± SD/n (%)/m x ± SD/n (%)/m x ± SD/n (%)/m x ± SD/n (%)/m
Category N (25, 75) N (25, 75) N (25, 75) P N (25, 75) N (25, 75) P

Children

Sociodemographic characteristics
Age (years) 1,291 10.0 ± 1.2 662 10.0 ± 1.2 629 10.0 ± 1.2 .313 1037 9.7 ± 1.2 254 10.2 ± 1.3 .003
City
Almería 1,291 369 (28.6) 662 195 (52.8) 629 174 (47.2) .749 1037 369 (100.0) 254 0 (0.0) <.001
Granada 600 (46.5) 302 (50.3) 298 (49.7) 346 (57.7) 254 (42.3)
Murcia 322 (24.9) 165 (51.2) 157 (48.8) 322 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
Distance (m)a 1,235 650 (350, 1100) 630 650 (350, 1,100) 605 600 (350, 1,100) .969 986 600 (300, 1,100) 249 650 (500, 1,100) .019
Walking distance (m)b 728 450 (273, 700) 417 450 (285, 700) 416 450 (273, 750) .663 685 450 (270, 700) 119 500 (350, 650) .001
Commuting to school
Active commutersc 1,291 865 (67.0) 662 438 (66.2) 629 427 (67.9) .511 1037 715 (68.9) 254 150 (59.1) .003
Walker commutersd 1,289 863 (67.0) 661 437 (66.1) 628 426 (67.8) .511 1035 713 (68.9) 254 150 (59.1) .003
Weekly active travels (no.) 1,290 6,1 ± 4.4 661 6.0 ± 4.4 629 6.1 ± 4.4 .490 1036 6.3 ± 4.3 254 5.1 ± 4.5 <.001
8 (0, 10) 8 (0, 10) 9 (0, 10) 9 (0, 10) 5 (0, 10)  

Adolescents

Sociodemographic characteristics
Age (years) 4,707 14.3 ± 1.3 2,329 14.2 ± 1.3 2377 14.3 ± 1.4 .029 3028 14.3 ± 1.3 1679 14.3 ± 1.4 .833
City
Almería 4,707 122 (26.5) 2,329 592 (48.5) 2,377 629 (51.5) .694 3,028 916 (75.0) 1,679 306 (25.0) <.001
Granada 2,142 (49.8) 1,064 (49.7) 1,078 (50.3) 1,377 (64.3) 765 (35.7)
Murcia 1,343 (27.8) 673 (50.1) 670 (49.9) 735 (54.7) 608 (45.3)
Distance (m)a 4,529 1,000 (550, 2900) 2,243 1,000 (550, 3,000) 2,285 1,000 (600, 2900) .814 2,906 850 (550, 2,000) 1,623 1,300 (750, 5500) <.001
Walking distance (m)b 2,477 650 (400, 925) 1,332 650 (400, 1,000) 1,380 650 (450, 1000) .524 1,841 650 (400, 900) 636 700 (450, 1000) .003
Commuting to school
Active commutersc 4,707 2,855 (60.7) 2,329 1,399 (60.1) 2,377 1,456 (61.3) .405 3,028 2,095 (69.2) 1,679 760 (45.3) <.001
Walker commutersd 4,689 2,837 (60.5) 2,328 1,398 (60.1) 2,360 1,439 (61.0) .518 3,015 2,082 (69.1) 1,674 755 (45.1) <.001
Weekly active travels (no.) 4,689 5,6 ± 4.6 2,323 5.6 ± 4.6 2,365 5.7 ± 4.6 .325 3,017 6.5 ± 4.5 1,672 4.0 ± 4.5 <.001
8 (0, 10) 8 (0, 10) 9 (0, 10) 10 (0, 10) 0 (0, 10)  

Note. Significant p values are highlighted in boldface.

a
Distance, distance from home to school in the whole sample—expressed as median (25th, 75th) percentile. bWalking distance, the distance from home to school of those who walk to school—expressed as median (25th, 75th)
percentile. cAn active commuter is anyone who undertakes at least one of the two journeys to and/or from school using an active mode. dA walker commuter is anyone who undertakes at least one of the two journeys to and/or
from school using the walk mode.
Rodríguez-López et al. 5

Table 2.  Associations Between Walking to School (vs. Passive) With Gender and Area of Residence in Children and Adolescents.

Walking to school (vs. passive)

Model 1 Model 2

Characteristics N OR 95% CI p N OR 95% CI p

Children
Gender
 Female 661 1 Reference 629 1 Reference  
 Male 628 1.09 [0.86, 1.38] .500 604 1.30 [0.95, 1.78] .104
Area of residence
 Urban 1,035 1 Reference 984 1 Reference  
 Rural 254 .56 [0.37, 0.86] .009 249 .58 [0.33, 1.02] .056
Home–school distancea — — — — — .81 [0.78, 0.83] <.001
Adolescents
Gender
 Female 2,328 1 Reference 2,243 1 Reference  
 Male 2,360 1.03 [0.90, 1.17] .674 2,270 1.13 [0.92, 1.38] .246
Area of residence
 Urban 3,014 1 Reference 2,895 1 Reference  
 Rural 1,674 .14 .01-.12 <.001 1,618 1.22 [0.27, 0.42] .885
Home–school distancea — — — — — .80 [0.79, 0.81] <.001

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Model 1 included gender and area of residence and was adjusted for school (entered as dummy variables)
and age. Model 2 included Model 1 and also adjusted for home to school distance. Significant p values are highlighted in boldface.
a
Expressed every 100 m.

This trend occurred between 1,301 m and 1,900 m for both
girls and boys, and for urban students, and between 1,001 m
to 1,300 m for rural students.
ROC curves analysis for walker versus passive commut-
ers according to the distance to school are shown in Figure 2.
Regarding children, the areas under the curve (standard
errors) were .863 (.012) for the whole sample, .847 (.017) for
girls, .880 (.015) for boys, .879 (.013) for urban students, and
.803 (.029) for rural students (all p < .001). The correspond-
ing threshold distances were 875 m, 875 m, 775 m, 1,250 m,
and 675 m. For the adolescents, the areas under the curve
(standard errors) were .935 (.004) for the whole sample, .930
(.006) for girls, .940 (.005) for boys, .942 (.005) for urban
students, and .927 (.006) for rural students (all p < .001). The
corresponding threshold distances were 1,350 m, 1,250 m,
1,350 m, 1,350 m, and 1,550 m. Additional ROC curve anal-
ysis only for the adolescents reported areas under the curve
(standard errors) of .927 (.009) for 13 years (n = 1,094), .933
(.008) for 14 years (n = 1,157), .948 (.007) for 15 years (n =
1,035), .954 (.011) for 16 years (n = 323), and .948 (.022) for
the adolescents aged 17 to 18 years (n = 112). The corre-
sponding threshold distances were 1,250 m, 1,350 m, 1,250
m, 1,850 m, and 1,700 m, respectively.
Discussion
The findings in the current study supported that around 67%
of the children and nearly 61% of the adolescents commuted
actively to school at least one of the journeys, with higher
rates of ACS observed in urban compared with rural children
and adolescents. The threshold distance that young people are
willing to walk to school was higher for adolescents than for
children (1,350 m and 875 m, respectively), and it was quite
similar between female and male school-age students for both
children and adolescents. Otherwise, the threshold distance
was higher in urban than in rural children (1,250 m and 675
m, respectively), and it was lower in urban adolescents than in
the rural ones (1,350 m and 1,550 m, respectively).
A total of 67% children and 60.7% adolescents commuted
actively to school. This trend is not a conclusive result in the
national framework, since previous studies from Spain have
reported a percentage of 62% children from Granada
(Rodriguez-Lopez et al., 2013), a 65% adolescents from five
Spanish cities (Chillón et al., 2009), and 57% adolescents
from Madrid (Martinez-Gomez et al., 2011). Comparisons
must be done cautiously because the sample and contexts are
different, even within the same country. Regarding interna-
tional studies, there are different results on the rates of ACS
in children and adolescents: A Swiss study observed a very
high percentage of ACS in children (72%) and a lower per-
centage in adolescents (44%; Bringolf-Isler et al., 2008). On
the other hand, a Danish study observed a very high percent-
age of ACS in adolescents (86%) and a lower percentage
(64%) in 9- to 10-year-old children (Cooper et al., 2006), due
to the high rate of cycling between adolescents. In this con-
text, it must be highlighted that the great tradition and culture
regarding bike commuting affects not only adolescents but
includes the whole population. Moreover, a previous research
6 Health Education & Behavior 

Figure 1.  Percentage of walkers and passive commuters by distance from home to school (in percentiles) in children and adolescents
(a), and by gender (b) and by area of residence (c), separately for children and adolescents.

in the United States showed that walking rates increase by
2% points per year as children age (McDonald, 2008). Thus,
the pattern of ACS in Spain is very close to that obtained by
other studies from Spain, and slightly lower than those
obtained by some European studies, which might be a reason
to continue working on the promotion of ACS.
A higher percentage of urban school-age students (nearly
69% for children and 69% for adolescents) commuted
actively to school compared with rural school-age students
(59% children, 45% adolescents), so the amount of physical
activity undertaken by the main mode of ACS by “walking”
could be higher in urban youths than rural. To the best of our
Rodríguez-López et al. 7

Figure 2.  ROC curve analysis for walkers versus passive commuters to school by distance from home to school in children and
adolescents (a), and by gender (b) and by area of residence (c), separately for children and adolescents.

knowledge, there are no studies from Spain that have investi-
gated this topic. A similar result with high rates of ACS in
urban young people was observed in adolescents from the
United States (Babey et al., 2009), adolescents from Canada
(Loucaides et al., 2007), and in Australian children (Merom
et al., 2006). Differences on commuting patterns between
urban and rural population might be explained by several fac-
tors displayed on previous studies, such as fewer facilities and
safe routes to school and lower school density resulting in
fewer opportunities that facilitate ACS (Davison et al., 2008;
Pont et al., 2009; Scheepers et al., 2013). In addition, built
environment characteristics that improve safety such as side-
walks and cycle lanes tend to be less frequent in rural areas
(Dalton et al., 2011). Moreover, longer distances from home
to school in the rural areas explain the need for a public school
transportation like the bus among rural students (Faulkner,
Stone, Buliung, Wong, & Mitra, 2013). In the current study,
we analyzed the association between ACS and area of resi-
dence, and the results showed that urban children and adoles-
cents were more active commuters to school than rural
children and adolescents. However, when we adjusted by dis-
tance, this association disappeared in children (borderline)
and in adolescents. Consequently, the difference in rates of
ACS between urban and rural children and adolescents is
explained by longer distances in the rural area that are not
affordable by walking modes of travelling and require motor-
ized transportation.
According to the findings of this article and previous
studies (Chillón et al., 2015; Davison et al., 2008; Larsen
et al., 2009; Pont et al., 2009; Timperio et al., 2006), there is
a clear association between distance and mode of commuting
used, where participants living closer to school are more
likely to walk to school than those living further away.
Therefore, determining what distance discriminates between
active and passive participants is of interest. We calculated it
using the ROC curve and the highly significant values
obtained guaranteed the accuracy and appropriateness of this
method. The main finding was that the threshold distance
regarding the whole sample below which participants are
willing to walk to school is 875 m for children and 1,350 m
for the adolescents. We also studied the threshold distance
for gender and area of residence. These distances were simi-
lar for gender in both children (875 m in boys and 775 m in
girls) and adolescents (1,250 m in boys and 1,350 m in girls).
8 Health Education & Behavior 
However, the threshold distance was quite different regard-
ing the area of residence (1,250 m in urban and 675 m in
rural children, 1,350 m in urban and 1,550 m in rural
adolescents).
This trend regarding shorter distances in childhood than
in adolescence has been previously evidenced in two inter-
national studies (Chillón et al., 2015; Timperio et al., 2006).
An English longitudinal study reported that the correspond-
ing threshold distances were 1,421 m, 1,627 m, and 3,046 m
for children aged 10, 11, and 14 years, respectively (Chillón
et al., 2015). Another Australian cross-sectional study
reported that children aged 5 to 6 years living less than 800 m
away from school were five times more active commuters to
school than those living beyond that distance, increasing to
10 times among children aged 10 to 12 years (Timperio
et al., 2006). In the current study, the walkable distance
increased nearly 500 m from childhood to adolescence,
regarding that it is a cross-sectional study. Other cross-sec-
tional studies calculated and clearly determined the thresh-
old distance for walking but only focused on children or
adolescents without studying different age groups (D’Haese
et al., 2011; Larsen et al., 2009; Merom et al., 2006; Nelson
et al., 2008; Van Dyck et al., 2010). In a population of
Australian children, it was found that as the distance
increased from more than 750 m to 1,500 m, the proportion
of those performing no ACS trips doubled (from 22.8% to
43.1%; Merom et al., 2006). In Belgian young people aged
11 to 12 years (D’Haese et al., 2011) and 17- to 18-year-olds
(Van Dyck et al., 2010), the threshold distance for walking
to school was 1,500 m and 2,000 m, respectively. Another
study in Canadian adolescents aged 11 to 13 years suggested
that distance which favors ACS is 1,609 m because within
this distance, two thirds of the sample commute actively to
school (Larsen et al., 2009). Also, a study in Irish adoles-
cents aged 15 to 17 years yielded a threshold distance for
walking of 2,400 m (Nelson et al., 2008). Although there is
no universal criteria, some studies showed that a distance of
4,000 m was considered as reasonable for adolescent walk-
ers (Nelson et al., 2008). Moreover, additional analyses
were performed only within adolescents for each year group.
Since the distance did not increase progressively with the
age, we can confirm that distance was not age-dependent;
however, in the oldest adolescents (i.e., 16, 17, and 18
years), the threshold distance was higher than in younger
adolescents (i.e., 13, 14, and 15 years), but sample sizes
were lower in oldest adolescents.
The results of the walkable distance reported in the cur-
rent study should be taken into account when planning inter-
ventions to increase the rates of ACS. Therefore, it should be
noted that the distance is the main factor to develop ACS.
Identifying threshold distances is important to promote ACS
and to help urban designers/planners develop neighborhoods
that support it (i.e., to locate the schools within walkable dis-
tances from residential areas) and inform policy develop-
ment around commuting to school (i.e., set the cutoffs points
for school bus provision; Chillón et al., 2015). Interventions
to promote ACS should first target children living within a
900-m distance (0.56-mile distance) from school and in ado-
lescents living within 1,300 m (0.81 miles). Besides, these
interventions should focus on increasing the length of the
threshold distances from home to school.
Study Limitations
Limitations include the convenience selection of the partici-
pants: The sample is limited in the representation of Spanish
youth from the southeast, but it contains a wide range of cases.
The use of the questionnaire to assess mode of commuting to
school, which has not been proven its validity and reliability yet
is another limitation, not only of this study but of this research
area in general. On the other hand, we consider a strength that
the questions used hereby are very similar to other question-
naires on children’s commuting to school that have demon-
strated acceptable validity in youth and were selected after a
thorough systematic review of the literature (Herrador-
Colmenero et al., 2014). The main strengths of the work are the
inclusion of data from children and adolescents, which allow us
to grasp the trend. Additionally, two strengths were the objective
measurement of the distance and the implementation of the
ROC curve to calculate the threshold distance.
Conclusion
The ACS rates were 67% in children and 60% in adolescents
from Spain. The rates of ACS were higher in urban compared
with rural children and adolescents. The threshold distance
that young people are willing to walk from home to school
was 875 m (0.54 miles) in children and 1,350 m (0.84 miles)
in adolescents.
Efforts to increase ACS are expected to have long-ranging
health benefits. Future research should address the study of
threshold distance in other Spanish provinces and walkable
distances in different countries, since it is a high specific
variable, which differs in each context, even within the same
country. Moreover, future interventions to promote ACS,
reiterating its social benefits, should be implemented taking
into account the home to school distance of each school-age
student (i.e., this threshold walkable distance for young peo-
ple) and would also decrease negative behavior patterns (i.e.,
passive commuting to school). It is our hope that this study
has provided some important insights for such efforts.
Authors’ Note
This work is part of a PhD thesis conducted in the Biomedicine
Doctoral Studies of the University of Granada, Spain.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the multiple school officials, students, and
their teachers and parents for their unconditional participation in
this study without whom this project would not have been possible.
Rodríguez-López et al. 9
We also acknowledge everyone who helped with the data collection
and all the members involved in the field work for their effort,
enthusiasm, and support.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of
Education and Science (FPU13/01088, FPU14/02518) and by the
Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RYC-2011-09011).
Additional funding from the University of Granada, Plan Propio de
Investigación 2016, Excellence actions: Units of Excellence; Unit
of Excellence on Exercise and Health (UCEES) and the EXERNET
Research Network on Exercise and Health in Special Populations
(DEP2005-00046/ACTI).
References
Babey, S. H., Hastert, T. A., Huang, W., & Brown, E. R. (2009).
Sociodemographic, family, and environmental factors associ-
ated with active commuting to school among US adolescents.
Journal of Public Health Policy, 30, S203-S220.
Bringolf-Isler, B., Grize, L., Mader, U., Ruch, N., Sennhauser,
F. H., & Braun-Fahrlander, C. (2008). Personal and environ-
mental factors associated with active commuting to school in
Switzerland. Preventive Medicine, 46, 67-73.
Buliung, R. N., Mitra, R., & Faulkner, G. (2009). Active school
transportation in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: An explo-
ration of trends in space and time (1986-2006). Preventive
Medicine, 48, 507-512.
Chillón, P., Martinez-Gomez, D., Ortega, F. B., Perez-Lopez, I. J.,
Diaz, L. E., Veses, A. M., . . . Delgado-Fernandez, M. (2013). Six-
year trend in active commuting to school in Spanish adolescents.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 529-537.
Chillón, P., Molina-García, J., Castillo, I., & Queralt, A. (2016).
What distance do university students walk and bike daily to
class in Spain. Journal of Transport & Health, 3, 315-320.
Chillón, P., Ortega, F. B., Ferrando, J. A., & Casajus, J. A. (2011).
Physical fitness in rural and urban children and adolescents from
Spain. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14, 417-423.
Chillón, P., Ortega, F. B., Ruiz, J. R., De Bourdeaudhuij, I.,
Martinez-Gomez, D., Vicente-Rodriguez, G., . . . Sjostrom,
M. (2011). Active commuting and physical activity in adoles-
cents from Europe: Results from the HELENA study. Pediatric
Exercise Science, 23, 207-217.
Chillón, P., Ortega, F. B., Ruiz, J. R., Evenson, K. R., Labayen,
I., Martinez-Vizcaino, V., . . . Sjostrom, M. (2012). Bicycling
to school is associated with improvements in physical fitness
over a 6-year follow-up period in Swedish children. Preventive
Medicine, 55, 108-112.
Chillón, P., Ortega, F. B., Ruiz, J. R., Perez, I. J., Martin-Matillas,
M., Valtuena, J., . . . Grp, A. S. (2009). Socio-economic factors
and active commuting to school in urban Spanish adolescents:
The AVENA study. European Journal of Public Health, 19,
470-476.
Chillón, P., Ortega, F. B., Ruiz, J. R., Veidebaum, T., Oja, L.,
Maestu, J., & Sjostrom, M. (2010). Active commuting to
school in children and adolescents: An opportunity to increase
physical activity and fitness. Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health, 38, 873-879.
Chillón, P., Panter, J., Corder, K., Jones, A. P., & Van Sluijs, E.
M. F. (2015). A longitudinal study of the distance that young
people walk to school. Health & Place, 31, 133-137.
Cooper, A. R., Andersen, L. B., Wedderkopp, N., Page, A. S., &
Froberg, K. (2005). Physical activity levels of children who
walk, cycle, or are driven to school. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 29, 179-184.
Cooper, A. R., Wedderkopp, N., Wang, H., Andersen, L. B.,
Froberg, K., & Page, A. S. (2006). Active travel to school
and cardiovascular fitness in Danish children and adolescents.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 1724-1731.
Dalton, M. A., Longacre, M. R., Drake, K. M., Gibson, L., Adachi-
Mejia, A. M., Swain, K., . . . Owens, P. M. (2011). Built environ-
ment predictors of active travel to school among rural adolescents.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, 312-319.
Davison, K. K., Werder, J. L., & Lawson, C. T. (2008). Children’s
active commuting to school: Current knowledge and future
directions. Preventing Chronic Disease, 5(3), A100.
D’Haese, S., De Meester, F., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Deforche, B., &
Cardon, G. (2011). Criterion distances and environmental cor-
relates of active commuting to school in children. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 88.
Faulkner, G., Stone, M., Buliung, R., Wong, B., & Mitra, R. (2013).
School travel and children’s physical activity: A cross-sec-
tional study examining the influence of distance. BMC Public
Health, 13, 1166.
Faulkner, G. E. J., Buliung, R. N., Flora, P. K., & Fusco, C. (2009).
Active school transport, physical activity levels and body
weight of children and youth: A systematic review. Preventive
Medicine, 48, 3-8.
Gropp, K. M., Pickett, W., & Janssen, I. (2012). Multi-level exami-
nation of correlates of active transportation to school among
youth living within 1 mile of their school. International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 124.
Herrador-Colmenero, M., Perez-Garcia, M., Ruiz, J., & Chillón,
P. (2014). Assessing modes and frequency of commuting to
school in youngsters: A systematic review. Pediatric Exercise
Science, 26, 291-341.
Hume, C., Timperio, A., Salmon, J., Carver, A., Giles-Corti, B., &
Crawford, D. (2009). Walking and cycling to school predic-
tors of increases among children and adolescents. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, 195-200.
Komori, O., & Eguchi, S. (2010). A boosting method for maximizing
the partial area under the ROC curve. BMC Bioinformatics, 11, 314.
Larouche, R., Saunders, T. J., Faulkner, G. E. J., Colley, R., &
Tremblay, M. (2014). Associations between active school
transport and physical activity, body composition, and cardio-
vascular fitness: A systematic review of 68 studies. Journal of
Physical Activity & Health, 11, 206-227.
Larsen, K., Gilliland, J., Hess, P., Tucker, P., Irwin, J., & He, M.
(2009). The influence of the physical environment and sociode-
mographic characteristics on children’s mode of travel to and
from school. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 520-526.
Lee, M. C., Orenstein, M. R., & Richardson, M. J. (2008). Systematic
review of active commuting to school and children’s physical
10 Health Education & Behavior 
activity and weight. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 5,
930-949.
Loucaides, C. A., Plotnikoff, R. C., & Bercovitz, K. (2007).
Differences in the correlates of physical activity between urban
and rural Canadian youth. Journal of School Health, 77, 164-
170.
Lubans, D. R., Boreham, C. A., Kelly, P., & Foster, C. E. (2011).
The relationship between active travel to school and health-
related fitness in children and adolescents: A systematic
review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, 8, 5.
Mandic, S., de la Barra, S. L., Bengoechea, E. G., Stevens, E.,
Flaherty, C., Moore, A., . . . Skidmore, P. (2015). Personal,
social and environmental correlates of active transport to
school among adolescents in Otago, New Zealand. Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 432-437.
Martinez-Gomez, D., Ruiz, J. R., Gomez-Martinez, S., Chillón, P.,
Rey-Lopez, J. P., Diaz, L. E., . . . Grp, A. S. (2011). Active
commuting to school and cognitive performance in adoles-
cents the AVENA Study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 165, 300-305.
McDonald, N. C. (2007). Active transportation to school: Trends
among US schoolchildren, 1969-2001. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 32, 509-516.
McDonald, N. C. (2008). Household interactions and children’s
school travel: The effect of parental work patterns on walk-
ing and biking to school. Journal of Transport Geography, 16,
324-331.
Merom, D., Tudor-Locke, C., Bauman, A., & Rissel, C. (2006).
Active commuting to school among NSW primary school chil-
dren: Implications for public health. Health & Place, 12, 678-
687.
Nelson, N. M., Foley, E., O’Gorman, D. J., Moyna, N. M., &
Woods, C. B. (2008). Active commuting to school: How far
is too far? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, 5, 1.
Ortega, F. B., Ruiz, J. R., Castillo, M. J., & Sjostrom, M. (2008).
Physical fitness in childhood and adolescence: A powerful
marker of health. International Journal of Obesity, 32, 1-11.
Ostergaard, L., Kolle, E., Steene-Johannessen, J., Anderssen, S.
A., & Andersen, L. B. (2013). Cross sectional analysis of the
View publication stats
association between mode of school transportation and physi-
cal fitness in children and adolescents. International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 91.
Panter, J., Corder, K., Griffin, S. J., Jones, A. P., & van Sluijs, E.
M. F. (2013). Individual, socio-cultural and environmental
predictors of uptake and maintenance of active commuting
in children: Longitudinal results from the SPEEDY study.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 10, 83.
Panter, J. R., Jones, A. P., van Sluijs, E. M. F., & Griffin, S. J.
(2010). Attitudes, social support and environmental percep-
tions as predictors of active commuting behaviour in school
children. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 64,
41-48.
Pont, K., Ziviani, J., Wadley, D., Bennett, S., & Abbott, R. (2009).
Environmental correlates of children’s active transportation: A
systematic literature review. Health & Place, 15, 849-862.
Rodriguez-Lopez, C., Villa-Gonzalez, E., Perez-Lopez, I. J.,
Delgado-Fernandez, M., Ruiz, J. R., & Chillón, P. (2013).
Family factors influence active commuting to school in Spanish
children. Nutrición Hospitalaria, 28, 756-763.
Scheepers, E., Wendel-Vos, W., van Kempen, E., Panis, L. I., Maas,
J., Stipdonk, H., . . . Schuit, J. (2013). Personal and environ-
mental characteristics associated with choice of active trans-
port modes versus car use for different trip purposes of trips up
to 7.5 kilometers in the Netherlands. PLoS One, 8(9), e73105.
Schisterman, E. F., Perkins, N. J., Liu, A., & Bondell, H. (2005).
Optimal cut-point and its corresponding Youden Index
to discriminate individuals using pooled blood samples.
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass), 16(1), 73-81.
Sterdt, E., Liersch, S., & Walter, U. (2014). Correlates of physical
activity of children and adolescents: A systematic review of
reviews. Health Education Journal, 73(1), 72-89.
Timperio, A., Ball, K., Salmon, J., Roberts, R., Giles-Corti, B.,
Simmons, D., . . . Crawford, D. (2006). Personal, family,
social, and environmental correlates of active commuting to
school. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 45-51.
Van Dyck, D., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Cardon, G., & Deforche, B.
(2010). Criterion distances and correlates of active transpor-
tation to school in Belgian older adolescents. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 87.