Active transport to school is associated with higher levels of physical activity in children. Promotion of active transport has therefore gained attention as a potential target to increase children’s physical activity levels. Recent studies have recognized that the distance between home and school is an important predictor for active travel among children. These studies did not yet use the promising global positioning system (GPS) methods to objectively assess active transport. This study aims to explore active transport to school in relation to the distance between home and school among a sample of Dutch elementary school children, using GPS. Seventy-nine children, aged 6-11 years, were recruited in six schools that were located in five cities in the Netherlands. All children were asked to wear a GPS receiver for one week. All measurements were conducted between December 2008 and April 2009. Based on GPS recordings, the distance of the trips between home and school were calculated. In addition, the mode of transport (i.e., walking, cycling, motorized transport) was determined using the average and maximum speed of the GPS tracks. Then, proportion of walking and cycling trips to school was determined in relation to the distance between home and school. Out of all school trips that were recorded (n = 812), 79.2% were classified as active transport. On average, active commuting trips were of a distance of 422 meters with an average speed of 5.2 km/hour. The proportion of walking trips declined significantly at increased school trip distance, whereas the proportion of cycling trips (β = 1.23, p < 0.01) and motorized transport (β = 3.61, p < 0.01) increased. Almost all GPS tracks less than 300 meters were actively commuted, while of the tracks above 900 meters, more than half was passively commuted. In the current research setting, active transport between home and school was the most frequently used mode of travel. Increasing distance seems to be associated with higher levels of passive transport. These results are relevant for those involved in decisions on where to site schools and residences, as it may affect healthy behavior among children. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-227 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sanned/
MULTIFILE
The 'implementation' and use of smart home technology to lengthen independent living of non-instutionalized elderly have not always been flawless. The purpose of this study is to show that problems with smart home technology can be partially ascribed to differences in perception of the stakeholders involved. The perceptual worlds of caregivers, care receivers, and designers vary due to differences in background and experiences. To decrease the perceptual differences between the stakeholders, we propose an analysis of the expected and experienced effects of smart home technology for each group. For designers the effects will involve effective goals, caregivers are mainly interested in effects on workload and quality of care, while care receivers are influenced by usability effects. Making each stakeholder aware of the experienced and expected effects of the other stakeholders may broaden their perspectives and may lead to more successful implementations of smart home technology, and technology in general.
Long before the COVID pandemic, we had already realised that traditional forms of internationalisation had their limitations. Mobility of students had remained limited to a small minority of students, a ‘cultural elite’. We had also become aware that student mobility was mostly from the global north to the south and that some of its effects were unwanted, and could lead to ‘white saviourism’. Finally, before the COVID pandemic we were already discussing the CO2 imprint of mobility and considering ‘greener’ forms of mobility of students and staff. More than twenty years ago, around 2000, attempts had already emerged to bring the benefits of internationalisation to all students through internationalisation at home. At the time, this was defined as “Any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student and staff mobility”. This definition did not mention explicitly that all students were targeted and also omitted the purpose of these activities.
