Title page

Commuting to school and to work among high school students of

Santa Catarina State, Brazil: a comparative analysis between 2001

and 2011

Change in modes of commuting in adolescents

Manuscript type: Original Research

Words: Transportation, physical activity, students, youth, Brazil.

Abstract word count: 200 words

Manuscript word count (except the abstract, title page, and

references): 4326 words

Date of manuscript resubmission: April __, 2013

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Abstract

Background: commuting may be an important opportunity for young

people to engage in daily physical activity. This study aimed to

compare modes of commuting to school and to work and identify

associated socio-demographic factors.

Methods: Epidemiologic study with repeated cross-sectional design.

Participated high school students (15-19 years of age) from Santa

Catarina state, Brazil in 2001 (n= 5028) and 2011 (n= 6529). A

questionnaire containing information on type of transport used to

commute to school and to work was applied.

Results: The use of walking/bicycle and by bus to school and to

work remained stable between 2001 and 2011, however traveling by

car/motorcycle increased significantly to school (6.4% versus

12.6%) and to work (10.2% versus 19.7%). In both cases, girls

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

traveled more by bus, while boys commuted more to work by car/bus.

Students from rural areas went to school more by car/motorcycle,

whereas those from urban areas traveled to work more by bus. There

was greater use of car/motorcycles by young people from higher-

income families.

Conclusions: Commuting to school by car/motorcycle almost doubled

in the last decade. Sex, residential area and income were

associated to passive commuting. Public policies with

intersectoral measures may lead the young to adopt an active

lifestyle.

Keywords: commuting, physical activity, work, school, students,

youth, Brazil.

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Introduction

The cardiovascular health benefits1,2 and the protector effect

against morbidities3 from engaging in physical activities are

increasingly evident. In modern society, the mode of active

commuting may be an important opportunity for daily exercise in

the young.4 However, there is little information on the tendency of

this behavior, mainly in developing countries.

In recent decades, the proportion of adolescents that commute

passively to school and/or work has risen in developed countries,5-

10 as well as in China11 and Brazil.12 Cross-sectional surveys13-19

reported prevalence between 31%17 and 56.7%19 of passive commuting

to school, and between 42.0%16 and 66.6%17 to work, in Brazilian

teenagers.

Considering that the commuting mode is also determined by

numerous socio-demographic factors, it is important to identify

which of these variables are associated to this behavior. Some

studies have demonstrated greater passive commuting among girls,20

in young people with more age,21 and in individuals with higher

income levels and more schooling.18 Despite representing an

important strategy for adopting an active lifestyle,22-24 physical

activity in commuting has been scarcely documented in Brazil, 25

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

and there is scant information on the secular tendency of this

behavior. Investigating alterations in the commuting mode used by

young people may help in monitoring transport patterns and guide

public policies promoting physical activity, in addition to

serving as the basis for intervention planning.

Accordingly, this study proposes to answer two questions: has

the commuting mode used by young people to go to school and work

changed between 2001 and 2011? Which demographic and/or

socioeconomic factors were and/or are still associated to physical

inactivity in commuting? To that end, the following objectives

were established: (1) Compare modes of commuting to school and

work in 2001 and 2011; (2) Identify demographic and socioeconomic

factors associated to passive commuting to school and work.

Methods

Characterized as a school-based epidemiologic survey, with

repeated cross-sectional design (panel study), this study is

linked to research entitled “Lifestyle and risk behaviors of young

people in Santa Catarina state, Brazil – COMPAC”, conducted in

2001 and 2011. The target population consisted of high school

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

students, aged between 15 and 19 years, enrolled in day and night

shifts at state public schools in Santa Catarina, Brazil.

The two surveys (2001: N= 205,543 2011: N= 205,572) considered

the following statistical parameters to calculate sample size:

unknown prevalence of the phenomenon, estimated at 50%; confidence

interval of 95% and maximum error of two percent. A minimum sample

size of 2,373 students was obtained. Since cluster sampling was

used, this number was multiplied by two (n= 4,746) for design

purposes, adding 25% for possible losses or refusals during

collection, resulting in a final sample of 5,932 adolescents, in

both surveys.

The six geographic regions and their respective Regional

Education Boards (n = 26) were considered as sampling strata.

Draws were conducted in two stages: (1) schools were stratified by

size (large: ≥ 500 students; medium: 200 to 499 students; and

small: < 200 students); (2) specific classes were drawn by shift

and grade.

In 2001, a total of 211 schools were selected of the 598

existing institutions. And in 2011, 90 of the 725 existing schools

were selected. To reduce variability in the number of classes,

small and medium-sized schools were combined, resulting in 76

Primary Sampling Units. To reach a total of 5,932 students, 240

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

classes were drawn in the first survey and 344 in the second.

Classes were then selected, considering shift and grade

proportionality, in 2001, and in 2011 cluster sampling for the

same size was used (n=5 classes/school) for the grade criterion.

The COMPAC (Behavior of Adolescents from Santa Catarina state)

questionnaire was developed based on other international

instruments for this population. In this occasion, it was carried

out face and content validity, and obtained values for thematic

unit reproducibility ranged from 0.64 to 0.99, in 200126 and 0.51

to 0.96, in 2011 (unpublished data).

The study was conducted in the classroom. One or two trained

examiners distributed the questionnaires, and instructed the

students on each block of questions. Instructions for filling out

the questionnaire were given collectively, using a direct format

for the first survey (2001) and instructions per block in 2011.

Application time was between 30 and 40 minutes in 2001, and from

40 to 50 minutes in 2011. The data collection period in the first

survey was from August to November, 2001, and the second from

August to October, 2011. Additional information on methodological

aspects of the study is found in the article recently published.27

In this study, the type of transport used to go to school and

work was analyzed. To that end, students responded as to how they

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

normally commuted: (1) to school; and (2) to work (response

answers: on foot, bicycle; car/motorcycle; bus; others).

The proportions in each outcome, between the two surveys, were

compared using confidence intervals of 95%. Adjusted multinomial

logistic regression analysis was then carried out, attributing

active commuting (on foot/bicycle) as reference variable, and bus

and car/motorcycle as response variables. Independent variables

were distributed into three hierarchical levels: distal (sex and

age); intermediate (residential area; commuting time; job

situation; monthly family income) and proximal levels (grade and

study period). A threshold p-value of 0.20 (p≤0.20) indicated the

variable remained in the model, and a significance level of p≤0.05

was established. Since no statistical differences were found

between the sexes, joint analysis was conducted. All analyses

considered procedures used in studies with complex methodologies,

incorporating sampling weight. To that end, STATA 11® software

(STATACorp LP, USA) was applied.

Both surveys were approved by the Human Research Ethics

Committee of Federal University of Santa Catarina (Process no.

064/2000 and 1029/2010). All students (or their guardians for

students under 18 years of age) received a Letter of Consent and

only participated in the survey if they agreed.

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

Results

A total of 96.8% (n = 4865) of students from the 2001 survey

(n= 5028) and 98.4% (n= 6426) of those enrolled in 2011 (n= 6529)

reported on the mode of commuting to school. Of those employed

(2001: n= 2434; 2011: n= 3605), 97.3% (n= 2369) reported the mode

of commuting to work in 2001 and 96.2% (n= 3469) responded in

2011. The demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of

adolescents in both surveys are presented in Table 1.

The prevalence of passive commuting (bus/car/motorcycle) to

school (2001: 43.7%; CI95%: 38.5; 48.9 versus 2011: 48.7%; CI95%:

43.0; 54.3) and to work (2001: 33.9%; CI95%: 29.4; 38.3 versus

2011: 38.5%; CI95%: 34.2; 42.8) remained stable after a decade.

There was decrease in active commuting, but it was not found

significant difference in travel to school (2001: 56.3%; CI95%:

51.1; 61.5 versus 2011: 51.3%; CI95%: 45.7; 57.0) and work (2001:

66.1%; CI95%: 61.7; 70.6 versus 2011: 61.5%; CI95%: 57.2; 65.8).

However, the increased use of a car/motorcycle (from 6.4% to

12.6%) to go to school occurred more as a result of the reduction

in active commuting, since taking the bus remained relatively

stable (from 37.3% to 36.1%), over a decade. Going to work by

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

car/motorcycle increased (from 10.2% to 19.7%) due to a reduction

in both bus travel (from 23.7% to 18.8%) and active commuting

(Figure 1).

After one decade there was increased prevalence of taking a

car/motorcycle to school in all indicators studied, except for

students aged 15 to 16 years residing in rural areas, who spent 20

or more minutes commuting and studied during the day (Table 2).

For commuting to work, there was a reduction in bus and

car/motorcycle use among adolescents who reported taking 20 or

more minutes to reach their destination. Moreover, using a

car/motorcycle increased in the other indicators, except for

first-year students from the day shift (Table 3).

Compared to the use of active transport to go to school, the

opportunity to take a bus was greater among girls, students that

live in rural areas, and those who took 20 minutes or longer to

reach their destination, in both surveys. It was also more likely

in students from the 2nd and 3rd year and less so in those that

studied at night in 2011. With respect to car/motorcycle use

versus active commuting, it was greater in students from rural

areas and those with higher family income and lower in those who

commuted for 20 or more minutes per day, in both surveys, and in

students from the night shift in 2001 (Table 4).

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

In commuting to work, taking the bus versus active commuting

was more likely in girls and students that spent 20 or more

minutes per day travelling and less probable in students from

rural areas, in both surveys. Only in 2001, students aged 17 to 19

years took the bus more than 15-to 16-year olds. In comparison to

the active transport, taking a car/motorcycle was more likely in

students with higher income and less so in girls and students that

spent 20 or more minutes per trip, in both surveys. It was also

higher in students aged 17 to 19 years, enrolled in the 2nd and 3rd

year and studying at night in 2011 (Table 5).

Discussion

Car/motorcycle commuting to school and work nearly doubled

(96.9% and 93.1%, respectively), and there was a decline no

significant in active commuting to school and to work, and taking

a bus to work. Some studies on secular tendency have recorded

change in modes of transport over time. For example, in Australia

the proportion of active commuting to school decreased between

1985 and 2004,10 and no change in commuting by car was observed

from 2004 to 2010.6 In Canada, a 15% increase in passive commuting

was recorded between 1986 and 2006,7 while the United States

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

experienced a decline in commuting by bus and a rise in car use

from 1969 to 2001.9

Although China has one of the highest rates of active

commuting24, a study conducted in nine provinces between 1997 and

2006 found a 128% increase in the proportion of passive commuting

to school.11 In Spain, a nearly 10% rise in commuting to school by

car was registered between 1992 and 2003.28 Data from European

studies,28,29 and 34 other countries30 recorded a 40 to 55%

prevalence of passive commuting to school. In Brazil, the

variation between studies was between 37.0% and 53.0%.13-15,19

A similar increase was observed for commuting to work. After

three decades (1976-2006), New Zeland recorded a rise in car

commuting from 64.8% to 83.0%, in individuals aged 15 years and

older.8 In Brazil, two-thirds of those aged 14 years or older

commuted passively to work16 and similar results (60.0%) were

recorded in Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul state.18 This variability

can be largely explained by differences in the information

obtained, from different periods, with inclusion of older and

younger age groups than those under study; by the inclusion or not

of adults or non-students in the sample, or by reporting the

cultural, social and economic differences of each country or

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

location. However, it is undeniable that passive commuting has

increased in recent decades, mainly by car/motorcycle.

Four characteristics have significantly influenced passive

commuting, namely: sex, residential area, time to destination and

income level, as well as age group when the commute is to work and

grade and study period in the 2011 survey.

Buses were used more by girls in commuting both to school and

work, while for the latter boys exhibited a higher prevalence for

traveling by car/motorcycle. Similar results were found in

adolescents from a city in southern Brazil.18 However, findings

diverge from those reported by Bungum et al.,31 who reported

differences in modes of commuting to school between American boys

and girls. One possible hypothesis for the greater use of

cars/motorcycles among boys is the sociocultural aspect, that is,

their earlier entry into the job market, which culminates in

higher financial autonomy. The fact that girls commute more by bus

possibly occurs by virtue of its low cost and safety, but more

studies are needed to elucidate these questions.

The literature also contained greater prevalence of passive

commuting to school in students living in rural areas compared to

urban areas,14,32 and a greater proportion among those with higher

income,8,32 as well as in students with higher income residing in

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

rural areas.11 The following factors are possibly associated to

these conditions: exponential growth in the number of vehicles

circulating in Brazil in the last decade, mainly cars and

motorcycles; inclusion of vehicle purchase incentive programs;

creation of federal school transport programs.

Between 2001 and 2011, the car and bus/microbus fleet in

Brazil has increased by 78%, while motorcycle sales have risen by

267%. In the state of Santa Catarina, cars increased by 95.3%;

buses/microbuses by 67.3% and motorcycles by 235.3%. In March

2011, buses accounted for 0.2% of the total fleet in some cities

and 4.2% in others, raising speculation that public transport is

inadequate in some locations.33

In addition to possible limitations in public transport,

constant bus fare increases, long waiting lines, slow travel

times, overcrowding and the poor condition of buses may have an

influence on commuting by car/motorcycle, which may occur with

young people living in urban areas.

Time spent commuting was directly related to the opportunity

of taking the bus and inversely related to the chance of using a

car/motorcycle, compared to active commuting. Similar results were

found in other studies.9,13 Surveys have reported that the main

barrier to active commuting is the distance from the residence to

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

school,13,34 with a number of studies showing that the greater the

distance the lower the frequency of adolescents that commute

actively.32

A significant federal initiative to encourage active

commuting, even over longer distances, involved extending the

"Walk to school" program in 2010, with a novel transport

alternative - the school bicycle, with standardized features and

specifications approved by the National Institute of Meteorology,

Quality and Technology. Thus, all the education sectors of the

government can acquire bicycles and helmets for school transport

at low cost, through on-line public procurement.35 Since 2011, in

an initiative to implement the program, the federal government

donated, through the National Fund of Education Development

bicycles and helmets to cities with up to five thousand students

enrolled in the basic public education system.36 This initiative,

in the long-term, could lead to an entrenched pattern of bicycle

use, not only for commuting to school, but also for other short

and medium distance trips.

In this study, adolescents from families with higher incomes

were more exposed to passive commuting. These results corroborate

evidence found in both studies on secular tendency8,32 and cross-

sectional studies.4,11,17,18 In Brazil, it is believed that using a car

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

demonstrates a better social and financial position, whereas

active commuting represents a need associated with conditions of

life. In order for young people to opt for using a bicycle or

walking, a number of long-standing paradigms must be broken, as

follows: a) encourage the use of bicycles for pleasure and fun; b)

provide access to information and knowledge to facilitate decision

making; c) make basic changes on routes around neighborhoods and

at school, such as building bicycle paths and installing more bike

racks at different locations, as well as encouraging the formation

of bikepools to commute back and forth from school.

In the last survey, there was greater use of cars/motorcycles

to go to work among older students and this may be due to their

greater autonomy in choosing transport and the possibility of

driving. Similar behavior was found in a Canadian study.7 The same

can be observed for students in the night shift and those enrolled

in more advanced grades who, in addition to being older, usually

earn higher personal incomes. Research conducted by the Brazilian

Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)16 also found more

passive commuting to work with more years of schooling. This

association may reflect the positive relationship between

education level and income, given that in Brazil, more schooling

generally translates into better financial conditions and enhanced

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

purchasing power. However, additional studies are needed to

elucidate this relationship.

A number of methodological alterations27 occurred between

surveys, which may interfere in result comparison. In this

respect, some adjustments were made to the sampling planning, in

which a number of classes were drawn in 2011, considering grade

levels. Information was added to the measuring instruments and the

structure was modified to allow optical reading. However, the

questions analyzed here remained unaltered in both surveys. Data

analysis incorporated sampling weight in the 2011 survey, based on

a number of cross references made between data banks and those

provided by the Education Secretariat of Santa Catarina state.

However, it may not entirely correspond to what occurred at the

time. It is also important to point out that the family income

variable was reported by students, and variability between the

reported and actual amount is unknown, possibly reflecting only an

approximate value of the exact amount. Other variables not

collected could influence the association between the use of

active commuting and by bus or car/motorcycle, as safety concerns.

This study presents new information on alterations in commuting

mode among students from a state in southern Brazil after one

decade, as well as association patterns between demographic and

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

socio-demographic factors. This is relevant because it allows

monitoring the prevalence of passive commuting across generations

and assists in implementing school health promotion programs.

Conclusions

After ten years, a drastic increase in the use of

cars/motorcycles was recorded. With respect to sex, girls had more

opportunities to commute to school and work by bus, whereas boys

commuted to work more by car/motorcycle. Students from rural areas

used the bus and cars/motorcycles more to go to school, and the

bus less to go to work, than those from urban areas. Bus use

increased for longer commutes, compared to walking and cycling.

Finally, for both destinations and surveys, there was greater use

of cars/motorcycles among adolescents from higher income families.

It is important to highlight that other socio-demographic

variables were associated to commuting mode, such as age range,

shift and school grade. Public policies with intersectoral

measures may educate adolescents on an active lifestyle.

Acknowledgments

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

The Department of Education of the state of Santa Catarina to

approve the COMPAC project to be done in both years, the

chairpersons of the Regional Education Boards, the directors of

the schools selected, the teachers who kindly gave up their class

time, and all the students who participated in this study.

Funding source

This project was supported by FAPESC (Foundation for Research and

Innovation in the State of Santa Catarina, Brazil), and CNPq

(National Research Council). None of these organizations

influenced the study planning or the decision to submit the

manuscript for publication. All authors declare no conflict of

interests.

References

1. Hamer M, Chida Y. Active commuting and cardiovascular risk: a

meta-analytic review. Prev Med. 2008;46(1):9-13.

2. Hu G, Sarti C, Jousilahti P, Silventoinen K, Barengo NC,

Tuomilehto J. Leisure time, occupational, and commuting

physical activity and the risk of stroke. Stroke.

2005;36(9):1994-1999.

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

3. Bassett Jr DR, Pucher J, Buehler R, Thompson DL, Crouter SE.

Walking, cycling, and obesity rates in Europe, North America,

and Australia. J Phys Act Health 2008;5(6):795-814.

4. Babey SH, Hastert TA, Huang W, Brown ER. Sociodemographic,

family, and environmental factors associated with active

commuting to school among US adolescents. J Public Health Pol.

2009:S203-S220.

5. McDonald NC, Brown AL, Marchetti LM, Pedroso MS. US school

travel, 2009: an assessment of trends. Amer J Prev Med.

2011;41(2):146-151.

6. Meron D, Rissel C, Reinten-Reynolds T, Hardy LL. Changes in

active travel of school children from 2004 to 2010 in New

South Wales, Australia. Prev Med. 2011.

7. Buliung RN, Mitra R, Faulkner G. Active school transportation

in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: an exploration of trends

in space and time (1986-2006). Prev Med. 2009;48(6):507.

8. Tin Tin ST, Woodward A, Thornley S, Ameratunga S. Cycling and

walking to work in New Zealand, 1991-2006: regional and

individual differences, and pointers to effective

interventions. Int J Behav Nutr Phys. 2009;6(1):64.

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

9. Ham SA, Martin S, Kohl 3rd H. Changes in the percentage of

students who walk or bike to school-United States, 1969 and

2001. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(2):205.

10. Lewis N, Dollman J, Dale M. Trends in physical activity

behaviours and attitudes among South Australian youth between

1985 and 2004. J Sci Med Sport. 2007;10(6):418-427.

11. Cui Z, Bauman A, Dibley MJ. Temporal trends and correlates of

passive commuting to and from school in children from 9

provinces in China. Prev Med. 2011;52(6):423-427.

12. Costa FF, Silva KS, Schmoelz CP, Campos VC, de Assis MAA.

Longitudinal and cross-sectional changes in active commuting

to school among Brazilian schoolchildren. Prev Med. 2012.

13. Silva K, Vasques D, Martins CO, Williams L, Lopes AS. Active

commuting: prevalence, barriers, and associated variables. J

Phys Act Health. 2011;8(6):750.

14. Santos CM, Júnior RSW, Barros SSH, de Farias Júnior JC, de

Barros MVG. Prevalência e fatores associados à inatividade

física nos deslocamentos para escola em adolescentes

Prevalence of physical inactivity and associated factors

among adolescents commuting to school. Cad. saúde pública.

2010;26(7):1419-1430.

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

15. Oliveira TC, Silva AAM. Atividade física e sedentarismo em

escolares da rede pública e privada de ensino em São Luís. Rev

Saúde Pública. 2010;44(6):996-1004.

16. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). Um

Panorama da Saúde no Brasil - Acesso e utilização dos

serviços, condições de saúde e fatores de risco e proteção à

saúde 2008. Rio de Janeiro, 2010. Disponível em:

<http://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao

/monografias/GEBIS%20-%20RJ/panorama.pdf>. Accessed 01 of

June, 2012.

17. Bastos J, Araújo C, Hallal P. Prevalence of insufficient

physical activity and associated factors in Brazilian

adolescents. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(6):777-794.

18. Bacchieri G, Gigante DP, Assunção MC. Determinantes e padrões

de utilização da bicicleta e acidentes de trânsito sofridos

por ciclistas trabalhadores da cidade de Pelotas, Rio Grande

do Sul, Brasil. Cad Saude Publica. 2005;21(5):1499-1508.

19. Silva KS, Nahas MV, Borgatto AF, et al. Factors Associated

With Active Commuting to School and to Work Among Brazilian

Adolescents. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(7):926.

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

20. Davison KK, Werder JL, Lawson CT. Peer Reviewed: Children’s

Active Commuting to School: Current Knowledge and Future

Directions. Prev chronic dis. 2008;5(3).

21. DiGuiseppi C, Roberts I, Li L, Allen D. Determinants of car

travel on daily journeys to school: cross sectional survey of

primary school children. BMJ. 1998;316(7142):1426-1428.

22. Mutrie N, Carney C, Blamey A, Crawford F, Aitchison T,

Whitelaw A. “Walk in to Work Out”: a randomised controlled

trial of a self help intervention to promote active

commuting. J Epidemiol Commun H. 2002;56(6):407-412.

23. Tudor-Locke C, Ainsworth BE, Adair LS, Popkin BM. Objective

physical activity of Filipino youth stratified for commuting

mode to school. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(3):465-471.

24. Tudor‐Locke C, Ainsworth B, Adair L, Du S, Lee N, Popkin B.

Cross‐sectional comparison of physical activity and

inactivity patterns in Chinese and Filipino youth. Child Care

Health Dev. 2007;33(1):59-66.

25. Santos CM, Barbosa JMV, Cheng LA, Wanderley Júnior RSW,

Barros MVG. Atividade física no contexto dos deslocamentos:

revisão sistemática dos estudos epidemiológicos realizados no

Brasil; Physical activity in the commuting context:

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

systematic review of epidemiological studies conducted in

Brazil. Rev Bras Ativ Fís Saúde. 2009;14(1).

26. De Bem MFL. Estilo de Vida e Comportamentos de Risco de Estudantes

Trabalhadores do Ensino Médio de Santa Catarina Florianópolis:

Engenharia de produção, Universidade Federal de Santa

Catarina; 2003.

27. Silva KS, Lopes AS, Hoelfelmann LP, et al. Health Risk

Behaviors Project (COMPAC) in youth of the Santa Catarina

State, Brazil: ethics and methodological aspects. Braz J

Kinanthropometry and Human Performance. 2013;15(1):1-15.

28. Roman-Vinãs B, Serra-Majem L, Ribas-Barba L, et al. Trends in

physical activity status in Catalonia, Spain (1992–2003).

Public Health Nutr. 2007;10(11):1389-1395.

29. Sandercock GRH, Ogunleye AA. Screen time and passive school

travel as independent predictors of cardiorespiratory fitness

in youth. Prev Med. 2012.

30. Guthold R, Cowan MJ, Autenrieth CS, Kann L, Riley LM.

Physical activity and sedentary behavior among

schoolchildren: a 34-country comparison. Journal Pediatr.

2010;157(1):43-49. e41.

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

31. Bungum TJ, Lounsbery M, Moonie S, Gast J. Prevalence and

correlates of walking and biking to school among adolescents.

Journal Commun Health. 2009;34(2):129-134.

32. McDonald NC. Active transportation to school: trends among US

schoolchildren, 1969–2001. Amer J Prev Med. 2007;32(6):509-516.

33. DENATRAN (Departamento Nacional de Trânsito). Frota de

veículos, 2001 a 2012. Disponível em: http://www.denatran. gov.br/

frota.htm. 2012. Accessed 01 of June, 2012.

34. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Indicators

for chronic disease surveillance. In: US DHHS, MNWR, Atlanta,

2004.

35. BRASIL. Resolução nº 40, de 29 de dezembro de 2010, do

Conselho Deliberativo do Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da

Educação. Programa Caminho da Escola para pleitear a

aquisição de bicicletas para o transporte escolar. . In:

Ministério da Educação, 2010.

36. BRASIL. Programa Caminho da escola: bicicleta escolar. 2012.

Disponível em:

<http://www.fnde.gov.br/index.php/camescbicicleta-escolar>.

Accessed 14 of July, 2012.

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530