Study Strengths and Limitations

First, the study sampling framework was a strength of this study, as it allowed for cross-site comparisons of factors influencing mode choice among people of different SES backgrounds, whose children attended schools located in different areas across Toronto. While differences between SES groups emerged in some of the attitudes surrounding AST as part of an overall active healthy lifestyle, road/traffic concerns were particularly reported by parents living in the looping street neighbourhoods. Second, the use of interpreters allowed me to interview parents who are traditionally excluded in research studies. Third, this study also utilized a relatively large sample size compared to other AST qualitative research and explicitly addressed the atheoretical nature of the AST literature. Finally, this exploratory study also used photo voice and input about school policy from key informants at each of the sites in order to better contextualize the study findings.

It is also important to consider the limitations of this study and the applicability of the findings. First, parents who typically escorted their children to/from school were invited to participate in

this study, and therefore it is unknown if factors influencing travel decisions are similar for those parents who do not escort their children. Second, because parents who drive to/from school were unable to take photographs, analysis of the photo voice data was limited. It would have been interesting to compare drivers’ and walkers’ perceptions of the social and physical environment through photography, and it would have enriched the NON AST interviews. Third, some NON AST parents were recruited who did not live within the school catchment area. Because the intent of this study was to explore how choices between AST and NON travel modes are made for individuals living within a “reasonable” distance from school, these interviews were often not as in depth, as distance was the central factor influencing mode choice. Nevertheless, these parents provided valuable insight into their travel experiences to/from school. Due to the qualitative nature of this study, these findings are not intended to be generalizable across all school locations in various cities and countries. However, it can assist AST researcher and practitioners in thinking about how physical and social environments can influence the behavioural cost and reinforcing value of AST and NON AST alternatives.

4 Future Directions

This study raises many questions that warrant further exploration. First, can modifications in the behavioural cost and/or reinforcing value of mode choice alternatives from these study findings actually change travel behaviour? Only through experimental interventions will the effect of such modifications be truly understood. Furthermore, what is the relative importance of behavioural cost and reinforcing value factors on mode choice? Can the reinforcing value of AST be enhanced, or should efforts focus on decreasing the convenience of driving to/from school? Second, do the factors influencing the decision to escort a child to/from school and/or travel mode choice differ among different populations? For example, would findings differ among parents who were unable to escort their child, or for parents and children with differing physical abilities? Third, are these findings unique to Toronto compared to other major urban centres and if so, how come? Fourth, how do SES and built environment factors moderate attitudes/factors at each level of this two-step decision-making process? For example, how much influence can changes in the built environments have on decision making? Designing school neighbourhoods with few thoroughfare streets may ease parents’ fears around independent travel; however, flexible work hours may play a more significant role on travel mode choice than any built environment intervention. This may be important for future quantitative research modeling

parental mode choice, as the influence of the built environment may be more significant in explaining escorting decision and not the mode choice per se. This may help explain inconsistent findings in the AST literature regarding the role of BE (and other) factors on travel mode choice. Since escort and mode choices have not been examined as two distinct decisions in the literature, future research can examine the relative importance of the influencing factors identified in the current study on escort and mode choices. Finally, given that school transportation appears to be influenced by a complex interplay of intrapersonal, social, organizational and built environment factors, continued research collaboration from sectors such as physical activity, transport/urban planning and social geographies will remain essential.

5 Conclusions

Although the findings of this study reaffirm many of the correlates found in the AST literature, it also changes how AST and travel mode choice is conceptualized. Based on the findings from this study, travel to/from school is a habitual behaviour that involves a 2-step parental decision- making process and these choices are influenced by related but different factors. While escort decisions are dictated by road/traffic and personal safety concerns, Behavioural Economics can be used to understand how the behavioural cost and reinforcing value of travel mode alternatives dictate mode choice. Behavioural Economics alone cannot explain school travel, as broader SES and built environment factors appear to moderate their effects on mode choice. The School Travel Parental Decision-Making Framework presented in this thesis should be used to design, implement and evaluate future AST interventions.