Connecting Schools with Local Communities Through Walkable Urban Design

Abstract

Educational facilities generate traffic to and from school by car, on foot and on wheels. Which mode of travel dominates in a school community depends on several different factors including but not limited to the neighbourhood design, traffic safety, employment structures, community norms, and school policies. This chapter traces the socio-technical entanglements of traveling to school. We focus on the barriers to, and benefits of, active travel (i.e., walking or wheeling for transport) and showcase what children value on their route to school. Additionally, we highlight how built environments and social practices need to be transformed for creating sustainable, healthy and inclusive urban environments. We argue that to foster inclusive communities and to create a sense of belonging outside the school gates, a multi sector approach is needed to challenge and transform current travel norms and practices together with the physical environment of neighbourhood travel.

Introduction

Walking and wheeling locally is good for children’s social, physical and mental wellbeing. Being out and about locally on a regular basis can bring communities closer together and has also positive effects on the environment as air pollution and CO² emissions are reduced. To ensure these benefits are available in cities, urban designers, transport engineers, and public health experts alike are placing increasing focus on urban design concepts such as walkability and 15-min neighbourhoods. In these concepts, destinations of importance (e.g., education, health, shopping, work, leisure spaces) are readily accessed within a short walkable or wheelable distance alongside infrastructure that supports walking and wheeling (e.g., bike lanes, pedestrian crossings) (Freeman & Cook, 2019). Schools are an integral component of such neighbourhoods—providing places for education, work, and in some instances for play and community activities outside school hours. How children get to and from school has a significant impact on community and environmental wellbeing—at one end of the scale, high levels of car use degrade social cohesion, increases emissions and congestion, and decreases road safety for those who are getting to school actively (Freeman & Tranter, 2011). Conversely, in schools with high levels of active school travel,¹ children can accumulate health-promoting levels of physical activity,² social connections are grown, car use is reduced, and children come to school healthier and more ready to learn (Neuwelt, 2006). Consequently, researchers, advocates and school travel planners began to campaign for a revival of walking, wheeling and busing to school as a response to declining activity levels in children and a reduction of their environmental awareness (Gleeson & Sipe, 2006; Kearns et al., 2003; Neuwelt, 2006) and then more firmly as part of the sustainability debates and the climate crisis (Freeman & Cook, 2019; Gill, 2021).

Although schools are part of the solution for moving towards sustainable, healthy and inclusive urban environments (Ergler et al., 2017b), they -as we argue in this chapter- are unable to carry the burden of being the sole role model, advocate and change leader for creating an engaging and safe school travel environment that encourages and normalises active travel modes. Rather a concerted effort is needed for creating such a sustainable and healthy travel environment that can facilitate inclusive communities³ and foster a sense of belonging outside the school gates. Such an effort combines, in our eyes, a multi sector approach for challenging and transforming the current travel norms and practices alongside the physical environmental features that enable or constrain active travel modes.

In this chapter we will first outline the socio-technical entanglements⁴ of travel environments and then discuss the need for a cooperative, collective approach between school communities, neighbourhood communities, and local and central governments along with a broader societal shift to create more inclusive, healthier, and sustainable travel environments that contribute to thriving neighbourhood communities.

Getting to and from School and Around the City: A Complex Socio-Technical System

The role social, political and environmental factors play for children’s journeys to school and for promoting active travel gained new momentum through the obesity epidemic in the early 2000s. To create healthy environments and tackle so called obesogenic environments, research began more broadly to focus on how the design of cities, political support and policies, social norms and values shape sedentary or more active lifestyles at the micro and macro level (Pearce & Witten, 2010; Public Health Advisory Committee, 2008). Concurrently, increasing research interest in understanding the changing nature of children’s mobilities, particularly reductions in school travel mode and independent mobility (e.g., children getting around without supervision⁵) in many western countries were taking place (Badland et al., 2016; Brown et al., 2008; Hillman and Policy Studies Institute (Great Britain), 1993; Rothman et al., 2018). In other words, the focus shifted beyond the binary thinking of society (practices, norms, values) and technology (including but not limited to policies, infrastructure, political systems) towards understanding how the socio-technical entanglements create certain travel practices, logics and processes (Opit & Witten, 2018).

Reasons for the decline in children’s mobilities and the generation of ‘backseat’ cohorts (i.e., children spending their lives being chauffeured between destinations) (Mitchell et al., 2007) began to be seen in light of an urban lifestyle that has (generally) changed to become more car oriented and spatially fragmented (e.g., home, education, work, leisure are spread across the city and accessed by car) (Urry, 2004). Growing time pressure for parents and their children, shifting employment patterns, and changing parenting expectations have contributed to this phenomenon (Banwell et al., 2007; Barker, 2011; Dowling, 2000; Karsten, 1998). Trip-chaining practices accommodate already busy lifestyles of families, and an increasing number of parents drive their children to destinations such as schools, after-school-care and leisure facilities (Buliung et al., 2017; Depeau et al., 2017; Panter et al., 2010; Zeiher, 2003). In other words, increasingly car-centric urban forms along with changing social norms contributes to the hegemony of motorised transport.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, for example, the disbandment of school zones exacerbated a growing reliance on car travel. School zones were later reintroduced and complemented with a ballot system, so that children are now often driven to what is considered the ‘best’ school, often outside their own neighbourhood (Lewis, 2004), resulting in decreasing independent mobility and active travel.

Other reasons for decreases in children’s independent mobility and active travel include but are not limited to parental fears of ‘stranger-danger’, concerns about traffic safety and a perceived lack of quality playgrounds and other local destinations (e.g., library, education, extra-curricular activities) (Crawford et al., 2017; Donnellan et al., 2020; Foster et al., 2014; Ikeda et al., 2018a). Thus, car travel becomes normalised and the main ‘go-to’ travel mode for any activity (Lang et al., 2011). A resulting paradox is that the higher the traffic volume is, the less likely parents grant children licences to travel autonomously and children’s habitual activity opportunities and chances to become ‘streetwise’ are disappearing.

Children report particularly fearing busy intersections and parked cars when walking, biking or wheeling (Fusco et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2007). They are also worried about traffic during drop off times at school (Neuwelt, 2006; Wilson et al., 2019). Children feel their body size exacerbates the risks of injury as children are small compared to big cars; they fear drivers are unable to see them and their driving practices often indicate that they do not take other road users into account (Egli et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2019). In addition, children often report that they are worried about the maintenance of pavements and see a need for appropriate street lighting; they are wary of stray dogs (Ergler & Kearns, 2013; Muhati-Nyakundi, 2019), bullies, and gang members (Fusco et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2019). Children also dislike rubbish and broken glass and more generally vandalism and graffiti in their neighbourhoods (Fusco et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2007).

While children seem to focus more on the mundane everyday risks and interactions as barriers for active travel, adults often highlight barriers on the macro level. Urban design and in particular active living environments⁶ and specific features such as street connectivity⁷ and safe road crossings as well as shorter distances to destinations are dominant facilitators (Smith et al., 2017). In other words, the design of neighbourhoods (e.g., roads, crossings, public spaces) can signal whether children are (un)welcome and can restrict children’s participation and engagement to bounded and constrained areas (e.g., fenced playgrounds). Neighbourhoods that have better street connectivity (Jia et al., 2021), that have street designs supportive of active travel modes (Smith et al., 2017), and that promote safety from traffic (Smith et al., 2019a) are all important to allow and encourage children to get around their neighbourhoods actively. Having a school at the heart of a neighbourhood is essential - having a school within 2.3 km from home means children are significantly more likely to get to school actively (Ikeda et al., 2018b).

Schools play an important role in determining children’s travel modes through advocacy, policies, programmes, and school culture (Hawley et al., 2019; Ikeda et al., 2020). Ensuring student safety is at the heart of school travel practices and policies; community partnerships (e.g., with local police and transport providers), infrastructure, and travel behaviours of transport users around schools (e.g., driving practices of neighbourhood residents) all play a role in school active travel policies and practices (Ikeda et al., 2020).

Some schools encourage active travel through their travel policies, while others create barriers and normalise automobility by buying into and promoting the risk-based discourse of transport (Porskamp et al., 2019). Schools can discourage active modes and try to improve the logistics of dropping children off and picking them up to enhance traffic safety and reduce congestion around schools. Schools that support an active form of transport provide, for example, bike stands or allow children to lock their scooters away, organise walking school buses and impose parking restrictions (Kearns & Collins, 2006). Schools can also promote active travel to school through targeted programmes and activities (e.g., reward systems, cycle skills training), with research demonstrating community partnerships are important facilitators for these (Ikeda et al., 2020).

Partnerships with organisations such as local councils, police, and transport agencies have clear co-benefits (e.g., road safety education reducing traffic injuries; travel planning increasing active travel and reducing congestion). Partnering with such agencies can enable more comprehensive and sustained programmes than solely relying on a school’s capacity to deliver a range of projects. Such partnerships have the added benefit of impacting change outside the school system as well, for example transport agencies can facilitate infrastructural changes (such as installation of pedestrian crossings) to improve student safety outside the school gate.

Overall, active travel to school is a complex socio-technical system. This system consists, as we have shown so far, of diverse decision-making logics, processes and practices at the micro (individual, family) and macro level (council, societal) that are entangled and co-constituted by diverse travel norms and expectations, infrastructure and policies. Thus, comprehensive community-wide approaches that support social cohesion, promote an active community culture, provide adequate infrastructure for active modes (including reducing distance to school), facilitate effective school and community partnerships, and keep children safe through programmes, partnerships, policies, and infrastructure are necessary (Smith et al., 2020). But why is it so important to get children walking, biking and wheeling to school and other community destinations beyond individual health gains?

Benefits of Active Travel and Independent Mobility

Being out and about, walking and cycling to destinations such as local schools, fosters a healthier lifestyle and is better for the planetary health by incorporating habitual activities in daily routines and through reducing C0² emissions (Freeman & Cook, 2019). Active travel is associated with significant improvements in child health outcomes, including increased physical activity, cardiorespiratory wellbeing and maintenance of a healthy weight (Falconer et al., 2015; Lubans et al., 2011; Schoeppe et al., 2013).

Active travel also offers opportunities for children to develop spatial skills and see, meet and interact with children of diverse ages and community members en route (Jarvis et al., 2017; Malone, 2007; Vieites et al., 2020). These interactions can create a sense of familiarity and trust; a sense of neighbourliness (Karsten, 2015; Weller & Bruegel, 2009). Neighbourhood communities lacking these arenas create places with little cohesion and place attachment. This aspect is especially important for children’s ‘environmental literacy’ and the development of their own social networks and environmental and cultural learning opportunities. However, whether such learning can take place, depends on how parents perceive their neighbourhood. The more parents perceive their neighbourhood as a safe, cohesive and socially connected environment (Donnellan et al., 2020; Ikeda et al., 2018a, 2019), the more likely children get the licence to independently explore their surroundings, use active or public transport to reach destinations and thus are afforded the opportunity to gain confidence in knowing the social and physical environment of their local community beyond the school gates (Ergler, 2020, 2020a; Lin et al., 2017). An active journey to school particularly offers such learning opportunities.

On their way to and from school, children report enjoying spending time talking to friends and family members (Egli et al., 2020). Being on the move together can strengthen existing friendships and allows the forming of new networks through spending time together en route (Ergler, 2020, 2020a; Fusco et al., 2013). Often these networks span different age groups (Kullman, 2010). Children also enjoy playing together on their way or they turn their route to school into a game, searching for ‘hidden spots’, ‘secret locations’ and short-cuts or more ‘scenic’ routes (Cele, 2006; Kullman, 2010, 2014) and turning the built environment into a playground by finding great spots for jumping, skipping, running and hiding (Donnellan et al., 2020; Egli et al., 2020; Ergler et al., 2017a). Children get familiar over time with the microenvironment, and they know where to find interesting objects like fascinating mailboxes, flowers and insects (Cele, 2006; Ergler et al., 2020a).

Being on the move also allows children to become acquainted with the social environment of their communities as they meet different people along the route. They learn to negotiate who is a friendly stranger or identify local animals that are safe to interact with (Wilson et al., 2019). When children walk alone, they appreciate the time for clearing their mind and getting ready for or distancing themselves from the happenings at school (Kearns et al., 2012b).

Overall, children value spending time away from the adult gaze to develop their own rhythms and explore their neighbourhoods in their own pace and on their own terms (Ergler, 2011; Kearns et al., 2012a). They value the expansion of their own ‘environmental literacy’, and they feel energised by their trips socially, physically and mentally (Egli et al., 2020; Kearns et al., 2012a; Mitchell et al., 2007).

Children also value a scaffolded approach to their independence by being accompanied by parents and siblings or other adults as for example on walking school buses or cycle trains. This adult accompaniment helps children to navigate the risks of journeys and in particular traffic; supporting their learning of rules and the becoming of a confident independent active traveller (Kullman, 2010). The tradition of walking or wheeling school buses offers an organised, supervised learning opportunity to navigate diverse risks associated with active travel, but also creates an arena for valuing and enjoying the environment through a different lens such as appreciating the play opportunities of the natural environment in different seasons along the route (Ergler, 2020, 2020a; Ergler et al., 2016a; Kearns et al., 2003).

Mobile phones are also an important mediator for supporting children’s mobility both as a distant parenting device for security and safety, but also a ‘companion’ that is co-opted into everyday life of ‘hanging out’, playing and creating diverse digital travel practices within and between groups along their route (Chaudhury et al., 2019; Ergler et al., 2016b; Nansen et al., 2017).

Moreover, active travel in the early years provides the foundation for a lifelong appreciating of active travel (Falconer et al., 2015). Teenage walking school bus graduates, for example, fondly remember their time on the bus and show ‘traces’ of enthusiasm for walking as an everyday form of active travel in an environment in which driving is the aspirational norm long after they graduated (Kearns et al., 2012a). These teenagers advocated for, and were inspired to incorporate, more sustainable urban mobilities in their routines. So, legacies of mundane practices in early childhood (Ergler et al., 2020b) have the potential to advance both personal health and more sustainable communities across the life span. The question then arises, how can we create a travel environment that contributes to a sustainable, healthy and inclusive community beyond the school gate?

Visions for Sustainable, Healthy and Inclusive Communities: Ways Forward and Potential Obstacles

Comprehensive approaches that embrace principles of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have considerable potential to support children’s active travel and independent mobility. LTNs are designed to restrict through-traffic in residential areas, and ideally discourage residential traffic driving in general (Goodman et al., 2021; Walker, 2020). Characteristics can include narrowing streets/widening footpaths, blocking one end of a street, traffic calming measures, lowered speed limits, and signage directing traffic onto main roads (Walker, 2020). Self-explaining roads (Mackie et al., 2018), play streets (Umstattd Meyer et al., 2019), and Barcelona’s ‘superilles’ (superblocks) all share fundamental LTN goals of reducing (or removing) traffic and reducing traffic speeds in residential areas. The aim is to generate residential neighbourhood environments that support liveability and wellbeing through facilitating active travel modes, improving safety, increasing accessibility, and facilitating social cohesion through encouraging people to be out and about, to linger, and interact with each other.

Evidence suggests these approaches are effective—LTNs can increase active travel modes while significantly improving safety—a recent examination showed a halving of traffic injury numbers in treated neighbourhoods compared with comparison neighbourhoods (Aldred & Goodman, 2021).

Community-wide infrastructural changes using self-explaining roads principles have demonstrated reduced speeds in treated residential streets (Smith et al., 2019b; Hosking et al., in press) and improved safety for pedestrians and people using mobility aids when crossing roads (Hirsch et al., 2022). Emerging evidence of Barcelona’s ‘superilles’ initiative of reclaiming local roads for pedestrian use suggests considerable benefits across liveability indicators (Speranza, 2018). Even temporary play streets can increase children’s physical activity and support social cohesion (Umstattd Meyer et al., 2019). COVID-19 lockdowns have offered new ways for people to experience their neighbourhoods, including experiencing LTNs due to restrictions on mobility.

In the case of Aotearoa New Zealand, lockdowns gave children the opportunity to experience their neighbourhoods in ways of generations past; they reported walking and wheeling in their community more and appreciated numerous aspects of their temporary LTNs including feeling safe, seeing more people out and about, being able to hear birds, enjoying the peacefulness and quiet of having few or no cars about (Smith et al., 2022). Some cities have responded to the pandemic scenario through comprehensive delivery of infrastructure to support active travel modes while others have returned to their pre-pandemic rates of car use (Jáuregui et al., 2021).

Community social norms and values alongside political priorities and leadership can determine whether such interventions occur. Despite the clear benefits of LTN design approaches, tactical urbanism and temporary installations of LTN infrastructure have received considerable community pushback internationally. In some cases, this pushback has reached the extent of vandalism and illegal destruction of infrastructure by residents. Similarly, legislative approaches to reducing speed limits, and to delivering cycling infrastructure have received considerable public criticism (Field et al., 2018), compounding challenges to implementing infrastructural improvements. While some of these instances might be led by a small group of residents, they nonetheless create division and dissent across a community and make it politically challenging to deliver infrastructure, including stalling processes.

Urgent approaches are necessary to improve planetary and human health, yet political decision-making processes can take considerable time, so these delays can have substantial impact. An exploration of legislating for 20 mph neighbourhoods showed it took 20 years from recognising reducing traffic speeds as a potential public health and transport intervention, to legislative implementation (Milton et al., 2021). Resident concerns about restrictions on individual car use and impacts of diverting traffic to bordering areas are key challenges to overcome. Extensive community consultation, engagement, and ideally comprehensive co-design including community leadership can all improve community understanding of the rationale for LTN suggestions.

Robust evidence, clear and timely communication, and strong community relationships are important priorities for enabling successful environmental changes. Strong political leadership is imperative alongside improved community engagement and leadership from within communities (Milton et al., 2021; Witten et al., 2018; Zografos et al., 2020). Even once infrastructure exists, the social fabric of a community is integral to shaping whether such environmental design interventions are effective or not. For example, as signalled earlier, school and community relationships, having an active community culture, and a sense of connection with neighbours have all been identified as important ingredients for the ‘recipe’ for children getting to school actively, alongside supportive active travel infrastructure (Hawley et al., 2019; Ikeda et al., 2018a; Smith et al., 2020).

Innovative strategies are needed to weave communities together with the shared dual purpose of supporting children’s active travel alongside improving social cohesion. Local businesses could partner with schools to support active school travel through provision of vouchers for walking school bus ‘drivers,’ allowing use of carparks for park and walk/ride activities and donating/loaning equipment for children). Stronger links between schools and the community could be established through allowing and encouraging the community to use the school grounds outside school hours. Additionally, community members could be engaged in supporting school active travel initiatives, including walking school buses, cycle trains, and scooter squads. As highlighted earlier, partnering with local government and non-government agencies is encouraged to support comprehensive and sustained programmes. Even employers can play a role, for example through allowing flexible work hours and work from home days to accommodate children’s active travel and avoid the need for trip-chaining. Local council and transport agencies can consult with children on environmental preferences and needs for active travel to help inform initiatives that are most likely to be effective in encouraging active travel modes. Mechanisms to support active travel in the community in general are also important to support a local active travel culture, increase everyday surveillance or what Jane Jacobs (2011) called ‘eyes on the street’, and to generate a critical mass of active travel mode users.

Conclusion

We started this chapter by explaining that the traffic generated by differing modes of travel to and from educational facilities is part of a complex socio-technical system. Thus, solutions to foster an active travel culture that connects schools and local communities cannot be one dimensional. Solutions require a multi-faceted and multi-sector approach as travel norms, values and practices shape and are shaped by (and are deeply entangled with) the diverse social, institutional and physical conditions of travel environments at different scales.

We have shown that urban form and the built environment, school and central government policies and planning practices and regulations as well as employment structures and opportunities all inform transport decision making. Similarly, parenting norms, expectations and practices, but also what type of travel to school is sanctioned and how cohesive, inclusive and socially connected neighbourhoods are, contribute to the choice of travel mode. However, we highlighted not only that adults create, sustain or at times disrupt this complex and car-dominated travel system, but that children also create their own travel logics, processes and practices. Listening to children and their stories reveals their enjoyments, motivations, frustrations and concerns for their travel mode and for the microenvironments of their school routes.

Unpacking and outlining these complex entanglements and the multi-faceted nature of travel within communities highlights the complex challenges for creating an active travel culture that connects schools and with their local communities. Simply placing the burden onto schools to facilitate the required change will not bring the anticipated success, enhance local community connections nor respond to the needs of diverse community groups to create an inclusive travel system. In other words, we have argued in this chapter that schools should not be the sole role model, advocator, and change leader for creating an engaging and safe school travel environment that encourages and normalises active travel modes. Rather, we advocated for a multi sector approach that aligns central and local government strategies, shifts social practices and encourages the normalisation of active travel to any destination within a community. Encouraging and creating an environment that invites active travel to school is the first step towards this vision. This effort can be achieved through creating LTNs, but also new collaborations between businesses and schools to encourage, reward and make active travel easy and enjoyable.

In conclusion, neighbourhood communities (including school communities) are the building blocks of healthy, inclusive, and sustainable cities. However, to ensure such cities become a reality, innovation and leadership is required across all layers and scales of the socio-technical urban travel system. Rather than pointing fingers at specific sectors or actors to be the sole leader of the necessary change, a concerted and connected effort is necessary in which everyone and every sector plays a role in creating an active travel environment at the micro and macro scale that can facilitate safe, inclusive, cohesive and socially and physically connected urban environments. The existing socio-technical system that is so durable needs to be disrupted to create a sense of belonging beyond the school gates and to challenge and transform current travel norms and practices together with the physical environment of neighbourhood travel.