Differences between adolescents' and their parents' perceived benefits and barriers to actively commute to school: The PACO y PACA project

CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Transport & Health journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jth Differences between adolescents' and their parents' perceived benefits and barriers to actively commute to school: The PACO y PACA project A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Transport Children Adults Perception School Environment A B S T R A C T Introduction: Adolescents' and Parents' perceptions of active commuting to school ACS have been studied mainly separately. This study aims to: (1) examine and compare the benefits and barriers of walking to school perceived by adolescents and their parents within the whole sample, (2) and based on adolescents' modes of commuting to school (walking and using motorized transport). Methods: Third grade adolescents at secondary education from 4 Spanish cities and their parents participated in the PACOyPACA cross-sectional study. All completed a benefits and barriers questionnaires regarding to adolescents walking to school. Descriptive statistics, paired samples t-test and Wilcoxon test were used to identify differences between adolescents' and their parents' perceived benefits and barriers. Results: 466 adolescents (age: 14.86 ± 0.51 years old) and 499 parents (age: 48.00 ± 5.42 years old) entered the study. Results showed that 209 (44.8%) adolescents walked to school, and girls did it significantly less (p < 0.01). Benefits were perceived as significantly more important for parents than for adolescents (p < 0.001) in all cases and regardless of the modes of commuting. As for barriers, adolescents cared significantly more about saving time (p < 0.001), and parents significantly gave more importance to traffic danger and additional planning to walk to school (p < 0.001). When adolescents walked to school, they were significantly more concerned than parents about saving time (p < 0.01), weather and walking being a hassle (p < 0.05), and parents reported traffic as a significantly higher concern than adolescents (p < 0.05). When adolescents commuted to school by motorized transport, they significantly gave more importance than parents to saving time (p = 0.001), and parents reported significantly higher values for additional planning to walk to school (p < 0.001), lack of continuous paths (p < 0.01), distance, weather, and traffic (p < 0.05) than adolescents. Conclusions: Perceived benefits were important for adolescents and parents, regardless of the modes of commuting to school. Adolescents and their parents presented higher concerns when adolescents commuted to school by motorized transport. 1. Introduction Despite the importance of physical activity (PA) recommendations (Bull et al., 2020), there is a global decline in adolescents' PA levels (Aubert et al., 2018;Guthold et al., 2020). Active commuting has been identified as a relevant factor to meet PA levels among adolescents (Lee et al., 2008), and there is evidence on the health benefits resulting from active commuting to school (ACS) (Khan et al., 2021). Nonetheless, subjective aspects, such as perceived barriers for ACS (Aibar Solana et al., 2018;Aranda-Balboa et al., 2020), may affect adolescents ACS. Existing research shows the importance of parents' perceptions of the environment for adolescents' ACS (Huertas-Delgado et al., 2017). Additionally, negative attitudes of children and their parents have been found to be related with a decline of ACS (Rothman et al., 2018), and a special emphasis have been made in parents being concerned for traffic and crime-related safety (Panter et al., 2008;Rothman et al., 2018) and parents perceiving lack of social interaction (Panter et al., 2008). Several parental barriers for ACS, such as traffic safety, crime-related safety, built environment and social support have already been found https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2024.101889 Received 25 May 2023; Received in revised form 31 July 2024; Accepted 19 August 2024 2214-1405/© 20XX Note: Low-resolution images were used to create this PDF. The original images will be used in the final composition. CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 (Aranda-Balboa et al., 2020), while parents of adolescents who actively commute to school report less barriers (Lee et al., 2013). The existing literature has mainly been focused on the environmental perception of parents of children aged less than 12 years old (Aranda-Balboa et al., 2020). However, parental perceptions of the environment may change, given that parents' perceived barriers can decrease as children grow (Forman et al., 2008;Kerr et al., 2006;Yeung et al., 2008). Additionally, it has been found that children and youth involvement in decision-making on their mode to commute to school increase as they grow (McMillan, 2005). As per adolescents perceived benefits to ACS, according to recent research, they considered walking and cycling to school as interesting and healthy (Mandic et al., 2017,2022), and that walking and cycling were great ways to exercise (Mandic et al., 2017). Another study (Simons et al., 2013) presented a classification of older adolescents' responses from focus groups regarding to walking, cycling, or using other modes of commuting to go to school: perceived health benefits, perceived costs for the use of those modes of commuting and the level of autonomy gained from their use. According to that classification, independence, cost or health-related are benefits that may be associated with ACS (Simons et al., 2013). Nonetheless, more recent research (Verhoeven et al., 2016) has not found associations between ACS and those benefits when perceived by their sample of adolescents, whereas those adolescents perceiving more of those benefits were more likely to use motorized transport to go to school in that population. Moreover, results from that study reflected those adolescents perceiving less walking and cycling facilities was associated with the use of motorized transport in the way to school (Verhoeven et al., 2016). According to other research (Kingsly et al., 2020), adolescent' perceived barriers regarding to traffic, traffic and crime safety, distance, social factors, not enjoying, and heat and sweat are associated to going to school by motorized transport. Another study (Mandic et al., 2021) showed that older adolescents and females were more likely to report an excessive school bag weight for walking or cycling to school, and one article reflected adolescents perceived not having control over whether walking or cycling to school (Mandic et al., 2022). Also, other barriers perceived by adolescents such as carrying too much stuff, being tired and too cold or wet weather have been slightly relevant for them to walk or cycle to school (Mandic et al., 2017). Furthermore, distance and “too much effort”has also been perceived as a barrier to ACS by adolescents (Barnett et al., 2019). Regarding to parents' perception, home-school distance has been interpreted as a parental barrier for adolescents' ACS (Huertas- Delgado et al., 2017;Mandic et al., 2020), also being parents perceived “closeness to school”reported as a reason for choosing adolescents' ACS (Huertas-Delgado et al., 2022). Furthermore, in addition to these findings, strong evidence suggests that home-to-school distance is negatively associated with ACS when objectively measured (Mandic et al., 2022;Wong et al., 2011). Moreover, carrying too much stuff, the after-school schedule, taking too much time, or the adolescent not wanting to walk or cycle to school have been other barriers perceived by parents to walking or cycling to school among adolescents (Mandic et al., 2020). This article (Mandic et al., 2020) also showed that parents wanting adolescents to walk or cycle to school was an important barrier for those behaviours, as well as not having cycle paths, being unsafe and parental decision were determinant barriers for ACS in adolescence. A few studies have included both adolescents' and their parents' perceived barriers for ACS (Aranda-Balboa et al., 2021;Carlson et al., 2014;Carver et al., 2005;Forman et al., 2008;Mandic et al., 2018). Busy traffic has been perceived by parents of girls as an important barrier for walking to school (Carver et al., 2005), and less pedestrian safety perceived by parents has negatively been related to ACS among adolescents (Carlson et al., 2014). Barriers perceived by parents related to environment, planning/psychosocial and safety have also been associated with adolescents ACS, whilst this association appeared in environmental and planning/psychosocial barriers when considering adolescents' perceptions (Forman et al., 2008). Adolescents' perceived barriers for ACS seem to be lower when they actively commute to school (Carlson et al., 2014), and social interaction perceived by adolescent girls, such as “friends in the same neighbourhood”and “lots of boys/girls of same age to hang out with”, have been related to higher levels of ACS (Carver et al., 2005). Other research has found that both, adolescents and their parents, perceived an excessive school bag weight to walk, mainly those who commuted to school by motorized transport or combined commutes (Mandic et al., 2018). Existing literature has found that barriers for ACS such as traffic safety concerns and convenience (easier or more convenient to drive or be taken, or additional planning necessary), built environment (dangerous crossings), crime-related safety, weather, physical and motivational barriers, social support (no other children or parents/adults walking or riding the bicycle on the way to school), and distance from home to school were higher for parents than for adolescents when the latter participated in a school-based cycling intervention (Aranda- Balboa et al., 2021). In this study, adolescent-parent pairs were chosen from available data, and independent samples' t-test was conducted to assess their differences on their perceived barriers to ACS, walk to school and cycle to school. Effective strategies addressing barriers for actively commuting to school need to be undertaken (Huertas-Delgado et al., 2018). However, the lack of literature in this context (Aranda-Balboa et al., 2020) suggests that further research is needed to know more about adolescents' and parents' perceptions regarding to ACS, and their differences. Moreover, after conducting this literature review, no evidence has been found attending the differences between adolescents' and their parents paired, depending on the mode used to commute to school. Hence, the current study sets the focus on analysing dyads of adolescents' and their parents' perceptions on benefits and barriers of ACS in four Spanish cities (Toledo, Sevilla, Granada and Valencia). This study aims to: (1) examine and compare the benefits and barriers of walking to school perceived by adolescents and their parents within the whole sample, (2) and based on adolescents' modes of commuting to school (walking and using motorized transport). 2. Methods 2.1. Research design This study followed the guidelines and checklist for cross-sectional studies of Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (von Elm et al., 2014). This is a multicentre, cross-sectional, national study based on the Pedal and Walk Home, Pedal and Walk to School (PACOyPACA) Project (reference: PGC2018-099512-B-I00). The design, protocol and methodology of this 2 CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 project were approved by Ethics Committee for Research with Drugs-SESCAM (ID: C-392), according to the Helsinki Declaration (1961) revised in Fortaleza in 2013 (World Medical Association, 2013). The PACOyPACA study protocol has already been published (Pinilla-Quintana et al., 2024). This project was conducted in 16 schools from 4 Spanish cities during the course 2020-21: Toledo, Sevilla, Granada and Valencia. Table 1 shows information on the 4 cities population, as reported by the Spanish National Institute of Statistics (INE in Spanish) in 2022, and presented in the Spanish Official Bulletin of the State (BOE, 2022) and population density (INE) in 2021 and family average annual income (INE) in 2019. All these data from INE are available on the online platform GEO PORTAL (GeoPortal, 2023) Population size and density were lower in the city of Toledo, and their average family annual income was similar in all 4 cities. In terms of climate, Toledo has a dry one, while it is mild for Sevilla, Granada and Valencia, as established through the Köpen Climate Scale (Chazarra-Bernabé et al., 2018). According to the Spanish Meteorology Agency (AEMET) Spanish Standard Climate Values (AEMET, 2010), Toledo has the coldest winters and Sevilla Granada and Valencia have mild ones, and all of them have hot summers. Furthermore, rainfalls are scare in the 4 cities, and snowfalls rarely take place. Additionally, according to the Spanish Main figures on Road Traffic Accidents in Spain (DGT, 2021), the national road fatality rate in Spain is under the European Union average (32 against 44 cases per million inhabitants). A 65% of those accidents take place in the urban settings, with a 21% of the total deaths due to traffic accidents. From those casualties, pedestrians were involved in a 12% of the accidents, although they covered a 20% of fatalities among all modes of transport, barely changing during the last decade. A 44% of all fatalities among children aged 14 or less years took place when they commuted by foot, and more than a 50% involved motorized modes of transport. As for those aged 15–17 years, a 15% of deaths happened as they walked, and more than a 70% involved motorized modes of transport. To ensure representativeness, according to the walkability and socioeconomic status (SES) scenarios, all schools from each city were classified according to SES and walkability in their census blocks prior to randomly selecting them. School census blocks were used as the smallest administrative areas, where SES was obtained from the average income of the census blocks was obtained from the National Institute of Statistics (INE) 2016, walkability was calculated by the online resource Walk Score® (www.walkscore.com) (Walk Score, 2019). Walk Score® measures walkability in a range of 0–100 points based on the proximity of a postal address to amenities such as grocery stores, schools, parks, restaurants, and retail, on population density and other road metrics like block length and intersection density. Higher scores are given for amenities accessible in a 5-min walk (402m), and no points are assigned after a 30-min walk (Walk Score, 2019). Walk Score has already been validated for neighbourhood walkability estimate (Carr et al., 2010), and it has already been used in studies focused on children and adolescents physical activity and weight status (Carlson et al., 2021) and ACS (Hawley et al., 2019;Race et al., 2017;Rothman et al., 2021). The schools postal address was used to obtain their Walk Sore. School areas were categorized as having low or high SES, and low or high walkability index. Schools' environments were then classified according the four possible SES-Walkability combinations (High-High, High-Low, Low-Low, Low-High). This classification has already been done by previous research (Borner et al., 2018;Kerr et al., 2006;Molina-García et al., 2017;Rothman et al., 2021). Random sampling was made for each of those cities, within the 4 categories. 2.2. Sample and procedures Adolescents aged 14.86 (SD: 0.51) years old studying at schools of the sampling and their parents/legal guardians were offered to take part in this study. Adolescents were given an informed consent and a questionnaire, both to fill up by their parents/legal guardians. Regarding to inclusion criteria, adolescents from the schools that took part who brought the study informed consent to participate, filled and signed by their parents/legal guardians, were invited to complete an adolescents' questionnaire. To ensure confidentiality, the participation in this study was anonymous, each adolescent was given an individual code, which they shared with their parents/legal guardians. The parents/legal guardians of those adolescents were considered after completing their respective questionnaire. A total of 525 adolescents and their parents were invited to participate, receiving signed consent from 499 parents/legal guardians. After undertaking data collection, the final sample for this study was composed by 499 parents (95.05% response rate) and 466 adolescents (88.76 response rate) (Fig. 1). The number of adolescents taking part in the study was different than the one of parents given that 33 adolescents did not attend the data collection. 2.3. Measures Parents and adolescents respectively completed questionnaires created ad-hoc for the PACOyPACA Project (Pinilla-Quintana et al., 2024). These included questions from previously validated questionnaires (Gálvez-Fernández et al., 2021;Redding et al., 2015; Shannon et al., 2006). These questionnaires included questions on sociodemographic data (date of birth and date of participation and sex), ways to commute to school and decisional balance (benefits and barriers for ACS). Table 1 General information of cities where the study was conducted (“GeoPortal”, 2023). Population (INE, 2022) Population density (INE, 2021) in inhabitants/km2Average family income (INE, 2019) in € Toledo 85,085 368.093 38,032.00 (32,000+) Sevilla 681,998 4835.549 32,467.00 (32,000+) Granada 228,682 2630.519 31,519.00 (28,000–32,000) Valencia 792,492 5668.769 34,330.00 (32,000) INE: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (Spanish National Institute of Statistics). All data from INE are available on the GEO PORTAL online tool (GeoPortal, 2023) 3 CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 Fig. 1. Flow chart of participants' recruitment process. 2.4. Sociodemographic variables Parents and adolescents self-reported their gender and date of birth when completing their respective questionnaires. 2.5. Commuting to school The questionnaire for adolescents included the following question: “Think about the last 5 days you have attended school (not including today). Answer the following question: ¿How did you go to school?”This question has previously been validated (Chillón et al., 2017) and included in another study (Gálvez-Fernández et al., 2021). Possible options for each day were: I didn't go to school, walk, cycle, electric cycle, skateboard, kicking scooter, electric scooter, car, motorcycle, school bus, public bus, metro/train/tram/ taxi/, and others. ACS comprised walk, cycle, skateboard and kicking scooter. 2.6. Benefits and barriers to walk to school Parents and adolescents were asked for their perceptions on benefits and barriers in relation to adolescents walking to school in their respective questionnaires. These were shown by different items based on previous evidence (Redding et al., 2015;Shannon et al., 2006). Items on benefits and barriers were translated into Spanish and adapted to the specific social context in this study. The items were included in a list after the question: “What importance do the following expressions referred to walking to school have for you?”Items were valued in a 1 to 5 Likert scale, where 1 meant “not at all important”, 3 was “somewhat important”and 5 was described as “very important”. 2.7. Statistical analysis Participants' answers were analysed with IBM SPSS Statistics 25 statistical programme. Sociodemographic data, and the main ways to commute to school among adolescents were reported by conducting a descriptive analysis. Given that only 6 adolescents commuted to school by cycling, e-bike or using kick scooter, modes to commute to school were classified in the following grouping variable: walking vs. motorized transport. Chi-square was applied to assess the possible differences between adolescent girls and boys in terms of modes of commuting to school (walking vs. motorized transport), and independent samples' t-test was applied to compare home-school distances of those who walked vs. those who used motorized transport to commute to school. Additionally, each of those items, as well as the sums of the scores and their average, were analysed independently (each adolescent with their parent) with related samples Fisher T-test and Wilcoxon test. To allow the related samples T-test to be conducted, each adolescent and their parent shared the same individual code and were place at the same row in the dataset. The Wilcoxon test was used to obtain those differences within the sample given the non-parametric distribution, while the related samples Fisher T-test provided a more visual presentation of the outcomes. Also, the same tests were conducted splitting the sample by commuting choice: walking to school and using motorized transport to go to school. Significance was reached with a value of p < 0.05. 3. Results Table 2 shows the demographic information for the whole sample of the study, their ways to commute to school and home-school distance, as well as the number of parents and adolescents based on the 4 possible SES-Walkability combinations. The sample reflects more parents than adolescents given the number of them that finally completed their questionnaires in each of the cases. Thus, a total of 499 parents (68.5% females), at a mean age of 48.00 years old (SD = 5.42; range = 25.51–72.42) completed the questionnaire designed for them. As to adolescents, 466 completed their respective questionnaire. Their mean age was 14.86 years old (SD = 0.51; range = 13.97–18.01), and implication was similar between both gender (52.1% female). The adolescents' average home-school distance ranged between 76 and 33900m. They used active and motorized transport in similar proportions (46.1% ACS; 4 CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 Table 2 Sample's information and modes of commuting to school. Parents (n = 499) M (SD) min-max Age (years) 48.00 (5.42) 25.51–72.42 Walk Score 83.57 (15.58) 48–100 n % Female 342 68.5 SES-Walkability oHigh-High 183 36.7 oHigh-Low 102 20.4 oLow-Low 142 28.5 oLow-High 71 14.2 Adolescents (n = 466) M (SD) min-max Age (years) 14.86 (0.51) 13.97–18.01 Walk Score (0–100) 82.99 (15.40) 48–100 Home-school distance (m) 4549.57 (6463.55) 76-33,900 n % Female 241 52.1 SES-Walkability oHigh-High 152 32.6 oHigh-Low 96 20.6 oLow-Low 145 31.1 oLow-High 73 15.7 Commuting to school -ACS 215 46.1 -Walking 209 -Motorized transport 251 53.9 ACS: Active Commuting to School; Distance: home-school distance; M: Mean; min-max: minimum-maximum; n: sample size; SD: Standard Deviation; SES: Socioeconomic status; %: percentage. SES-Walkability: Possible combinations of socio-economic status (high or low) and Walk Score (high or low). 44.9% walking to school). Adolescents who walked to school were 209 (44.8%), for 251 who went to school by motorized modes of transport (53.9%). As Table 3 shows, there was a significant difference on the use of modes of commuting to school by gender, where females used more the motorized transport to get to school (p < 0.01). As per other modes of ACS, data also reported that one girl and three boys commuted to school by bicycle, one boy did it by electric bicycle and another boy used the kick scooter for these commutes (data not showed on the tables). Significant differences were found between the home-school mean distances of adolescents who walked to school and those who commuted to school by motorized transport. Table 4 presents the benefits and barriers to walk to school as perceived by parents and adolescents, as well as the sums of all benefits and of all barriers scores, and the average of each of the sums. All benefits averaged from around 4.5 points upwards among parents, out of a maximum of 5. Adolescents rated each of the items with more than 3 points in average. Benefits such as “Walking improves my health and physical fitness levels”,“Commuting on foot gives me the opportunity to socialize (see friends)” and “Walking is a way to improve my own health and the health of the planet”were the most valued among parents (more than 4.5 points) and adolescents (more than 4 points). Parents gave significantly more value than adolescents to all benefits (all, Table 3 Gender and home-school distance differences between modes of commuting to school (walking vs. motorized transport). Walking Motorized transport p-value Gender Female n (%) 95 (39.6) 145 (60.4) 0.007 Male n (%) 114 (52.1) 105 (47.9) Home-school distance Mean distance m (SD) 1088.22 (2148.35) 7499.64 (7407.87) <0.001 n: sample size; p: level of significance; SD: standard deviation; %: percentage. Significance: p < 0.05. 5 CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 Table 4 Differences between adolescents and their parents' benefits and barriers to walk to school. Parents Adolescents Student-Fisher T-test Wilcoxon Test n = 464 Missing M (SD) M (SD) MD (95% CI) p p Benefits Commuting on foot is worth the extra effort 425 39 4.48 (0.95) 3.55 (1.36) 0.93 (0.80–1.06) <0.001 <0.001 I am proud that I can help the environment by commuting on foot 423 41 4.47 (0.90) 3.9 (1.24) 0.57 (0.43–0.70) <0.001 <0.001 Walking is part of being “green”423 41 4.49 (0.88) 4.02 (1.09) 0.47 (0.36–0.58) <0.001 <0.001 Walking is a way to improve my own health and the health of the planet 421 43 4.67 (0.68) 4.32 (0.93) 0.356 (0.25–0.46) <0.001 <0.001 Walking can save me money (gasoline, bus ticket, parking) 420 44 4.34 (1.06) 3.89 (1.23) 0.44 (0.30–0.59) <0.001 <0.001 Walking improves my health and physical fitness levels 426 38 4.80 (0.55) 4.24 (1.02) 0.56 (0.46–0.66) <0.001 <0.001 Commuting on foot provides me enjoyment 417 47 4.41 (0.93) 3.13 (1.43) 1.28 (1.14–1.43) <0.001 <0.001 Commuting on foot gives me the opportunity to socialize (see friends) 422 42 4.80 (0.55) 4.24 (1.02) 0.56 (0.46–0.66) <0.001 <0.001 ∑of benefits 400 64 36.15 (5.26) 30.26 (6.64) 5.89 (5.21–6.58) <0.001 <0.001 M of benefits 400 64 4.52 (0.66) 3.78 (0.83) 0.74 (0.65–0.82) <0.001 <0.001 Barriers (n) Commuting on foot is not practical from where we live 416 48 2.93 (1.97) 2.82 (1.73) 0.11 ((-0.07)-0.28) 0.237 0.225 Commuting on foot can be a hassle 410 54 2.27 (1.56) 2.38 (1.43) −0.11 ((-0.29)-0.06) 0.203 0.219 Other modes of transport save me time 409 55 2.92 (1.66) 3,34 (1.50) −0.42 ((-0.60)- (-0.24)) <0.001 <0.001 Commuting on foot may be too much trouble/difficult 413 51 2.46 (1.65) 2.31 (1.55) 0.14 ((-0.03)-0.31) 0.095 0.072 We live very far from school to go on foot 413 51 2.96 (1.82) 2.84 (1.75) 0.12 ((-0.03)-0.27) 0.123 0.138 It is difficult to commute on foot in bad weather conditions (rain, cold, wind or hot) 408 56 3.36 (1.59) 3.32 (1.54) 0.04 ((-0.12)-0.21) 0.616 0.749 Going on foot requires additional planning 408 56 2.36 (1.55) 2.05 (1.32) 0.31 (0.14–0.48) <0.001 <0.001 There are not continuous paths to walk to school 409 55 2.67 (1.71) 2.46 (1.67) 0.21 (0.03–0.39) 0.020 0.021 Commuting on foot involves physical effort 408 56 2.54 (1.53) 2.52 (1.45) 0.01 ((-0.17)-0.19) 0.893 0.773 Commuting on foot is dangerous due to traffic 412 52 2.79 (1.59) 2.47 (1.52) 0.32 (0.16–0.49) <0.001 <0.001 I lack knowledge on the best route to go to school 401 63 1.73 (1.28) 1.84 (1.36) −0.11 ((-0.28)-0.05) 0.185 0.220 ∑of barriers 370 94 28.54 (13.56) 28.18 (11.72) 0.36 ((-0.81)-1.54) 0.541 0.510 M of barriers 370 94 2.59 (1.23) 2.56 (1.07) 0.03 ((-0.07)-0.14) 0.541 0.510 M: Mean; n: number of pairs parent-adolescent; CI: Confidence Interval; MD: Mean Difference; SD: Standard Deviation; ∑: Sum. Significance: p < 0.05. p < 0.001). Both, the sum of benefits scores and the average of all benefits scores, also were significantly higher for parents than for adolescents (both p < 0.001). As to barriers, they were generally reported with low scores among both, parents and adolescents. Parents just reported weather (“It is difficult to commute on foot in bad weather conditions (rain, cold, wind or hot)”) as an important concern (higher than 3 points), and adolescents mainly cared about the time spent on the way to school (“Other modes of transport save me time”) and bad weather (also over the score of 3 points). Parents reported significantly higher scores for “Going on foot requires additional planning” (p < 0.001) and “Commuting on foot is dangerous due to traffic”(p < 0.001) than adolescents. Adolescents were significantly more concerned about “Other modes of transport save me time”than parents (p < 0.001). When making the sums of barriers for parents and adolescents, as well as the barriers overall average, no differences were found between parents and adolescents (both p = 0.510) and, in both cases, values were relatively low (just over 28 points in the average sum; less than 3 points in average). Table 5 presents the benefits to walk perceived among parents and adolescents depending on the modes of commuting to school used, as well as their sums. When adolescents walked to school, their parents of those adolescents significantly reported higher benefits to walk to school and the sum of those scores (all, p < 0.001). Benefits scores were broadly high for parents (over 4 points) and for adolescents (over 3.5 points) when adolescents walked to school. Benefits parents gave special importance were “Walking improves my health and physical fitness levels”,“Walking is a way to improve my own health and the health of the planet”and “Commuting on foot is worth the extra effort”. On the other hand, “Walking is a way to improve my own health and the health of the planet”,“Walking improves my health and physical fitness levels”and “I am proud that I can help the environment by commuting on foot”were the main benefits for adolescents who walked to school. When adolescents went to school by motorized means, all benefits' scores were higher than 4, and from around 3 for adolescents. Parents and adolescents most important perceived benefits were “Walking improves my health and physical fitness levels”,“Walking is a way to improve my own health and the health of the planet”and “Walking is part of being “green””. Benefits reported by parents had significantly higher values than those reported by adolescents when they commuted to school by motorized transport, as well as the sum of benefits' scores (all, p < 0.001). 6 CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 Table 5 Differences between adolescents and their parents' benefits to walk to school based on the adolescents' modes of commuting to school. Parents Adolescents Student-Fisher T-test Wilcoxon Test MCS n W: 206 MT: 250 Missing M (SD) M (SD) MD (95% CI) p p Benefits Commuting on foot is worth the extra effort W 189 17 4.76 (0.67) 4.26 (0.95) 0.49 (0.34– 0.64) <0.001 <0.001 MT 228 22 4.26 (1.07) 2.95 (1.35) 1.31 (1.12– 1.50) <0.001 <0.001 I am proud that I can help the environment by commuting on foot W 188 18 4.63 (0.72) 4.28 (1.04) 0.35 (0.17– 0.52) <0.001 <0.001 MT 227 23 4.33 (1.01) 3.56 (1.31) 0.78 (0.58– 0.97) <0.001 <0.001 Walking is part of being “green”W 188 18 4.62 (0.75) 4.14 (0.98) 0.48 (0.32– 0.64) <0.001 <0.001 MT 227 23 4.39 (0.96) 3.92 (1.15) 0.48 (0.32– 0.64) <0.001 <0.001 Walking is a way to improve my own health and the health of the planet W 185 21 4.76 (0.53) 4.46 (0.79) 0.30 (0.17– 0.44) <0.001 <0.001 MT 229 21 4.61 (0.77) 4.20 (1.02) 0.41 (0.25– 0.57) <0.001 <0.001 Walking can save me money (gasoline, bus ticket, parking) W 186 20 4.41 (1.01) 4.03 (1.23) 0.38 (0.16– 0.60) <0.001 <0.001 MT 226 24 4.27 (1.10) 3.77 (1.22) 0.50 (0.31– 0.70) <0.001 <0.001 Walking improves my health and physical fitness levels W 189 17 4.86 (0.43) 4.41 (0.89) 0.44 (0.31– 0.58) <0.001 <0.001 MT 229 21 4.75 (0.64) 4.10 (1.07) 0.65 (0.50– 0.79) <0.001 <0.001 Commuting on foot provides me enjoyment W 187 19 4.58 (0.80) 3.67 (1.29) 0.91 (0.71– 1.12) <0.001 <0.001 MT 222 28 4.29 (0.99) 2.66 (1.37) 1.63 (1.43– 1.83) <0.001 <0.001 Commuting on foot gives me the opportunity to socialize (see friends) W 188 18 4.58 (0.81) 3.57 (1.46) 1.01 (0.80– 1.22) <0.001 <0.001 MT 226 24 4.26 (1.14) 3.01 (1.46) 1.24 (1.03– 1.46) <0.001 <0.001 ∑of benefits (n =175) W 175 31 37.25 (4.20) 32.72 (5.41) 4.53 (3.64– 5.42) < 0.001 < 0.001 MT 218 32 35.28 (5.86) 28.22 (6.85) 7.06 (6.07– 8.06) <0.001 <0.001 CI: Confidence Interval; M: Mean; MCS: Modes of Commuting to School; MD: Mean Difference; MT: Motorized Transport; n: number of pairs parent-adolescent; SD: Standard Deviation; W: Walking; ∑: Sum.//Significance: p < 0.05. When adolescents walked to school, parents sum of perceived benefits was higher than 35 points in average out of 40, and adolescents more than 30. As for those cases where adolescents commuted to school by motorized transport, the sums of benefits scores were higher than 25 points among parents and adolescents. Perceived benefits' sums reported by parents were significantly higher than the ones shown by adolescents, regardless of the mode of commuting to school. Barriers for walking to school and their sums can be found in Table 6. When adolescents walked to school, barriers seemed less relevant (less than 3 points out of 5 among both parents and adolescents) than when adolescents commuted to school by motorized transport. In any case, results reflected significantly higher values for parents than for adolescents in “Commuting on foot is dangerous due to traffic”(p < 0.05). Adolescents paid significantly more attention than parents to “Other modes of transport save me time” (p < 0.01), and “It is difficult to commute on foot in bad weather conditions (rain, cold, wind or hot) (p < 0.05). The barrier “Commuting on foot can be a hassle”was also significantly more valued for adolescents according to Wilcoxon test (p < 0.05). When adolescents walked to school, parents considered the barriers “It is difficult to commute on foot in bad weather conditions (rain, cold, wind or hot)”,“We live very far from school to go on foot”and “Commuting on foot is not practical from where we live”as the most relevant. Adolescents had special concerns for “Other modes of transport save me time”,“It is difficult to commute on foot in bad weather conditions”and “We live very far from school to go on foot”. Moreover, barriers such as “We live very far from school to go on foot”(p < 0.05), “It is difficult to commute on foot in bad weather conditions (rain, cold, wind or hot)”(p < 0.05), “Going on foot requires additional planning”(p < 0.001), “There are not continuous paths to walk to school”(p < 0.01), and “Commuting on foot is dangerous due to traffic”(p < 0.01) were significantly more important for parents than for adolescents, and “Other modes of transport save me time”(p = 0.001) was higher among adolescents than for parents. 7 CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 Table 6 Differences between adolescents and their parents' barriers to walk to school based on the adolescents' modes of commuting to school. Parents Adolescents Student-Fisher T-test Wilcoxon Test MCS n W: 206 MT: 250 Missing M (SD) M (SD) MD (95% CI) p p Barriers Commuting on foot is not practical from where we live W 184 22 1.83 (1.38) 1.81 (1.25) 0.02 ((-0.24)-0.28) 0.901 0.818 MT 224 26 3.83 (1.56) 3.68 (1.61) 0.15 ((-0.10)-0.39) 0.233 0.265 Commuting on foot can be a hassle W 183 23 1.50 (1.02) 1.70 (1.09) −0.20 ((-0.41)-0.00) 0.052 0.049 MT 219 31 2.91 (1.64) 2.95 (1.43) −0.05 ((-0.31)-0.22) 0.738 0.792 Other modes of transport can save me time W 183 23 2.15 (1.46) 2.55 (1.41) −0.40 ((-0.66)- (-0.14)) 0.003 0.002 MT 218 32 3.58 (1.54) 3.99 (1.23) −0.41 ((-0.67)- (-0.15)) 0.002 0.001 Commuting on foot may be too much trouble/difficult W 184 22 1.55 (1.18) 1.52 (1.06) 0.04 ((-0.17)-0.24) 0.715 0.650 MT 221 29 3.19 (1.61) 3.00 (1.59) 0.19 ((-0.07)-0.45) 0.148 0.124 We live very far from school to go on foot W 182 24 1.67 (1.27) 1.74 (1.22) −0.07 ((-0.31)-0.17) 0.560 0.579 MT 224 26 3.98 (1.52) 3.76 (1.59) 0.22 (0.04–0.41) 0.020 0.028 It is difficult to commute on foot in bad weather conditions (rain, cold, wind or hot) W 179 27 2.42 (1.42) 2.69 (1.47) −0.27 ((-0.51)- (-0.03)) 0.030 0.024 MT 221 29 4.11 (1.29) 3.84 (1.38) 0.27 (0.05–0.49) 0.016 0.023 Going on foot requires additional planning W 182 24 1.62 (1.12) 1.53 (0.99) 0.09 ((-0.11)-0.29) 0.386 0.291 MT 218 32 3.00 (1.58) 2.50 (1.40) 0.51 (0.24–0.78) <0.001 <0.001 There are not continuous paths to walk to school W 182 24 1.79 (1.33) 1.71 (1.27) 0.08 ((-0.18)-0.35) 0.541 0.538 MT 219 31 3.44 (1.65) 3.10 (1.69) 0.34 (0.09–0.59) 0.008 0.008 Commuting on foot involves physical effort W 182 24 2.11 (1.43) 2.08 (1.31) 0.03 ((-0.23)-0.29) 0.835 0.818 MT 218 32 2.92 (1.52) 2.92 (1.44) 0.01 ((-0.25)-0.26) 0.971 0.831 Commuting on foot is dangerous due to traffic W 184 22 2.07 (1.30) 1.82 (1.13) 0.25 (0.03–0.47) 0.024 0.020 MT 220 30 3.41 (1.54) 3.02 (1.59) 0.39 (0.14–0.64) 0.002 0.002 I lack knowledge on the best route to go to school W 182 24 1.34 (0.89) 1.37 (0.905) −0.03 ((-0.21)-0.14) 0.713 0.784 MT 211 39 2.08 (1.45) 2.24 (1.53) −0.16 ((-0.43)-0.11) 0.241 0.253 ∑of barriers W 170 36 19.89 (9.79) 20.65 (8.40) −0.76 ((-2.42)-0.89) 0.364 0.280 MT 193 57 36.16 (11.72) 34.95 (9.88) 1.21 ((-0.42)-2.84) 0.145 0.100 CI: Confidence Interval; M: Mean; MCS: Modes of Commuting to School; MD: Mean Difference; MT: Motorized transport; n: number of pairs parent-adolescent; SD: Standard Deviation; W: Walking; ∑: Sum. Significance: p < 0.05. Barriers overall were not perceived as relevant (sums were around 20) when adolescents walked to school. In the cases adolescents went to school by motorized transport, sums for perceived barriers resulted high (around 35). The sums of barriers' scores were not significantly different between parents and adolescents regardless of the way to commute to school. 4. Discussion The current study examined the use of modes to commute to school among adolescents and detected the main benefits and barriers to walk to school for adolescents and their parents. The existing differences between adolescents' perceived benefits and barriers and those perceived by their parents within the whole sample were found. Finally, the research conducted highlighted the existing differences in those benefits and barriers between both groups based on the way adolescents commuted to school. The results showed that boys significantly walked to school more than girls. Also, all benefits to walk to school were perceived as beneficial by all parents and adolescents. These were especially perceived as important for adolescents when they walked to school, although they still were important for parents, and somewhat important or important for adolescents who commuted to school by motorized transport. As per the perception of barriers to walk to school, on the other hand, participants considered them between somewhat important and not important. In addition, parents and adolescents scores for all barriers to walk to school increased when adolescents commuted to school by motorized transport. Benefits reflected high scores for both parents and adolescents, regardless the modes of commuting used to commute to school. As to adolescents, although health-related benefits in this article show some of their highest scores, existing research has found some discrepancies. One study (Simons et al., 2013) reported that older adolescents saw physical health and fitness as either a benefit from 8 CORRECTED PROOF Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) 101889 ACS, or not as beneficial due to, for instance, car exhaust. Another study (Verhoeven et al., 2016) did not find an association between benefits perceived by adolescents and ACS, whereas it was found when adolescents went to school in motorized modes of transport. Simons et al. (2013) also found that economic costs were more determinant for choosing walking or cycling rather than public or private motorized transport, being this also found among both parent and adolescents in the current study. As for the social aspect, both parents and adolescents found walking as an opportunity to socialize, and only those adolescents commuting by motorized transport rated a lower score than 3 to walking allowing enjoyment. Other evidence has shown that social interaction is an important aspect for ACS among adolescents as well (Carver et al., 2005). Nonetheless, adolescents commuting to school by motorized transport perceived ACS as not fashionable and reported not to enjoy it (Kingsly et al., 2020). In terms of perceived barriers, weather has also been presented as relevant for parents in previous research too (Aranda-Balboa et al., 2021). On the other hand, parents from this study did not perceive distance to school and other barriers related to convenience as important within the total sample. That is contrary to other evidence (Aranda-Balboa et al., 2021). However, when adolescents commuted to school by motorized transport, results on parents perceived distance from the current study increased, agreeing with those obtained by previous studies (Huertas-Delgado et al., 2017,2022). Other barriers significantly reported as higher for parents than for adolescents were traffic safety and additional planning. Traffic safety has also been found as a parental concern (Carlson et al., 2014; Carver et al., 2005), as well as planning and safety by other work (Forman et al., 2008). Regarding to adolescents' perception, the current study found a bigger concern for them when they used motorized transport regarding to the existence of continuous paths, which has also been found in previous research (Verhoeven et al., 2016). Adolescents from the present study also reported higher scores than their parents regarding walking being a hassle when they walked to school. Nonetheless, the reflected score was rather low as per commuting on foot involving physical effort, regardless of the modes of commuting to school. This is contrary to what was found by other researchers (Barnett et al., 2019;Kingsly et al., 2020). While adolescents gave low values to distance, other authors have identified it as relevant for them (De Meester et al., 2013;Forman et al., 2008). Adolescents did not give a high value to distance either when they commuted to school by motorized transport, being opposite of other articles' findings (Barnett et al., 2019;Kingsly et al., 2020). Other barrier not reported as relevant for adolescents and their parents for walking in the current study was related to traffic safety, which have been related to adolescents choosing other modes of commuting rather than ACS in another research (Kingsly et al., 2020). Moreover, according to Kingsly et al. (2020) (Kingsly et al., 2020), other adolescents perceived barriers associated to those going to school by motorized transport were related to the crime safety, or not being allowed, which are not addressed on this article. Parents and adolescents did not consider barriers as important when adolescents walked to school, as found by existing literature as well (Carlson et al., 2014). Also, while traffic safety has been perceived as a higher concern for parents than for adolescents within the total sample and based on both commuting categories, distance only was significantly higher for parents when adolescents used motorized transport, with no other significant differences. Previous research has also presented findings on traffic safety and distance being significantly more valued by parents than by adolescents (Aranda-Balboa et al., 2021). The current study has focused on adolescents' modes to commute to school (walking vs. motorized transport). Results found after bivariate analysis was conducted present significant differences in adolescents home-school distance by modes of commute. Actual home-school distance can also affect adolescents' perceptions of benefits (Simons et al., 2013) and barriers (Mandic et al., 2022), as well as parents' perceived barriers (Mandic et al., 2020), but the current article has not included this analysis. Hence, Simons et al. (2013) showed that older adolescents valued independence from ACS in short distances, but that independence was more relevant for them regarding to using motorized transport in longer distances. Mandic et al. (2022) found that adolescents did not like or did not want to walk to school, and were concerned for the distance, existence of walking infrastructure and the weather when they lived further from school. Additionally, parental perceived barriers such as their children getting too hot or sweaty, carrying too much stuff, too much planning, no convenience due to after-school schedule, walking taking too much time, not wanting or liking walking to school, distance and no footpaths also increase with home-school distance (Mandic et al., 2020). This suggests that both, the modes to commute to school and home-school distance, may determine adolescents' and their parents' perceived benefits and barriers towards walking to school. 4.1. Strengths and limitations This work brings new findings to the currently scarce evidence on parents and their adolescents' perceptions to ACS. It also presents benefits and barriers by an innovative tool within the school settings, applying it to parents and adolescents equally to better appreciate how their perceptions may differ. Additionally, it includes these adult-adolescent differences attending to the modes of commuting used to commute to school, providing the existing contrast depending on whether they walk or use motorized transport modes. In this study, not only barriers, but also benefits are contemplated for both parents and adolescents. As for the sample, the use of SES and walkability index for the schools sampling results in a more representative final sample of the cities included in the study by focusing on the diversity of their environments. This study works on the data from the National PACOyPACA study, counting on schools from four middle sized cities, setting good example of what may be found in those urban areas. These findings may be of use for parents/legal guardians associations, schools, NGO's and other policy makers when designing and the implementing interventions on ACS. The current study provides a good picture of those Spanish urban environments taking into consideration SES and walkability of their schools' areas. This may contribute to and be compared with the existing literature on this field of research to help grow the evidence. Nonetheless, its sample cannot be considered as representative nationally, as it has only focused on four cities (i.e., urban environments) from Spain. As per its cross-sectional design, it prevents the current research from making any inferences about causality. Moreover, although differences have been found regarding to gender, these have not been addressed in terms of perceived benefits 9