View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Children's Active and Autonomous School Journeys and Their Implications: An Investigation Using Drawing Methodology

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Children's Active and Autonomous School Journeys and Their Implications: An Investigation Using Drawing Methodology
Language: English
Authors: Naiara Berasategi Sancho (ORCID 0000-0003-1775-3431), Amaia Eiguren Munitis (ORCID 0000-0001-5960-9994), Idoia Legorburu Legorburu Fernandez (ORCID 0000-0002-3971-3636), Nahia Idoiaga Idoiaga-Mondragon (ORCID 0000-0003-0345-8570)
Source: Child & Youth Care Forum. 2026 55(1):227-245.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 5
Intermediate Grades
Grade 6
Descriptors: Elementary School Students, Grade 5, Grade 6, Student Attitudes, Student Experience, Student Mobility, Foreign Countries, Freehand Drawing, Barriers, Content Analysis, Traffic Safety, Urban Planning
Geographic Terms: Spain
DOI: 10.1007/s10566-025-09867-3
ISSN: 1053-1890
1573-3319
Abstract: Background: Active and autonomous school mobility has various benefits, including improved physical health, environmental awareness, and social integration. However, little research has explored how children perceive their school journeys and the factors that facilitate or hinder their mobility. Objective: This study investigates how children perceive and represent their school journeys through drawings. It identifies key landmarks, obstacles, and facilitators and explores how these perceptions vary according to mobility levels. Methods: A total of 659 students from the 5th and 6th grades of seven educational centers in the Basque Autonomous Community participated. Each student created a drawing depicting their journey to school. The drawings were analyzed using visual content analysis, categorizing elements into four themes: reference points, obstacles, environmental characteristics, and facilitators. Results: Homes and schools were the most frequently depicted landmarks. Children identified obstacles such as roads, roundabouts, and crosswalks--especially in drawings from those with lower active mobility. In contrast, students with higher active mobility included more green spaces and facilitators like pedestrian paths and bike lanes, reflecting a more positive view of their environments. Conclusions: The findings highlight the need for child-centered urban planning that supports active mobility. Enhancing pedestrian infrastructure and integrating children's perspectives into urban design can lead to safer, more engaging school routes that foster autonomy and environmental awareness.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1505866
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEmWEb5qkHWYZlB_hbun-w4AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIobiTcE18y9JenRdAIBEICBm7ZIfLo6SUzNjDfHfiTPat07Hm5ma3TE5lGBTuYtkR7xAGckOrI_X665bjAN9ORj3Tqvwcrfb3qgsP8rGZncV8yDVytSZv0S0vWg91FCDB_pNy75qp8ErU8SUmUwoNGYg5wfK-YUg0tWVBRtUui6CMFhSKNVH5sdLgXGux__i65BKZA1tNNU1oRE_sjnPeEL8fLTEupH2dPXWOzZ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191453678;5jr01feb.26;2026Feb11.04:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191453678-1">Children's Active and Autonomous School Journeys and Their Implications: An Investigation Using Drawing Methodology </title> <p>Background: Active and autonomous school mobility has various benefits, including improved physical health, environmental awareness, and social integration. However, little research has explored how children perceive their school journeys and the factors that facilitate or hinder their mobility. Objective: This study investigates how children perceive and represent their school journeys through drawings. It identifies key landmarks, obstacles, and facilitators and explores how these perceptions vary according to mobility levels. Methods: A total of 659 students from the 5th and 6th grades of seven educational centers in the Basque Autonomous Community participated. Each student created a drawing depicting their journey to school. The drawings were analyzed using visual content analysis, categorizing elements into four themes: reference points, obstacles, environmental characteristics, and facilitators. Results: Homes and schools were the most frequently depicted landmarks. Children identified obstacles such as roads, roundabouts, and crosswalks—especially in drawings from those with lower active mobility. In contrast, students with higher active mobility included more green spaces and facilitators like pedestrian paths and bike lanes, reflecting a more positive view of their environments. Conclusions: The findings highlight the need for child-centered urban planning that supports active mobility. Enhancing pedestrian infrastructure and integrating children's perspectives into urban design can lead to safer, more engaging school routes that foster autonomy and environmental awareness.</p> <p>Keywords: Drawings; Student transportation; School-community relationship; Social participation; Family education</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Child participation is a fundamental right recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref1">47</reflink>]). Children engage in various participatory experiences across contexts such as schools, municipal councils, and toy libraries (Bhosale et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; Lay-Lisboa & Montañes, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]; Mitra & Buliung, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]; Save the Children, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref5">39</reflink>]; Tonucci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref6">44</reflink>]) (Bhosale et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]; Lay-Lisboa & Montañes, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]; Mitra & Buliung, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>]; Save the Children, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref10">39</reflink>]; Tonucci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref11">44</reflink>]). School journeys offer another opportunity for participation, fostering both autonomy and active mobility (Morris et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref12">32</reflink>]). These initiatives encourage children—often from the age of six—to walk or cycle to school independently while also engaging local stakeholders such as shopkeepers and pedestrians. In this context, <emph>autonomous mobility</emph> refers to children traveling through public spaces without adult supervision, while <emph>active mobility</emph> involves non-motorized travel such as walking or cycling (Legorburu et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]). Although the importance of these practices is increasingly recognized (Carver et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]; Mitra & Buliung, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref15">31</reflink>]), little research has examined how children themselves perceive their school journeys or how these perceptions differ by mobility patterns and environmental conditions. This study addresses that gap using a creative, participatory methodology—drawing—to explore children's perspectives on their school travel experiences.</p> <p>Active school travel—such as walking, cycling, or other non-motorized forms—has been associated with numerous benefits, including better physical health, enhanced cognitive development, and increased social interaction (Legorburu et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]; Faulkner et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]; Mackett et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]). However, despite these advantages, children's independent mobility has declined due to urban design constraints, parental safety concerns, and a growing reliance on motorized transport (Shaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref19">41</reflink>]; Veitch et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref20">48</reflink>]). To understand the complexity of this issue, the present study draws on ecological and sociocultural theory. Bronfenbrenner's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]) ecological systems theory emphasizes how children's development is shaped by their interactions within different environmental contexts. Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref22">50</reflink>]) sociocultural theory complements this view, highlighting how autonomy and problem-solving skills emerge through social engagement. Together, these perspectives offer a comprehensive framework for examining how school mobility experiences shape children's cognitive, emotional, and social development.</p> <p>Promoting autonomous and active school mobility supports children's well-being by encouraging physical activity, reducing sedentary behavior, and strengthening their connection to local environments (Tonucci, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref23">45</reflink>]; Villanueva et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref24">49</reflink>]). Research indicates that children who travel to school actively develop stronger spatial navigation skills, greater independence, and deeper engagement with their local communities (Prezza et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]; Schoeppe et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]). The broader aims of autonomous mobility include increasing children's visibility—and thus safety—in public spaces while fostering community solidarity and shared responsibility (Tonucci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref27">44</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref28">45</reflink>]). Although most research has focused on physical and cognitive outcomes, this study focuses on the social and environmental factors shaping how children experience and choose their school travel modes.</p> <p>This study contributes to the literature by employing a participatory, creative methodology—drawing—to explore children's school journeys. Unlike traditional surveys or observations, drawings offer direct access to children's lived experiences, revealing how they perceive barriers, facilitators, and their engagement with the built environment. This approach deepens our understanding of how urban design, safety perceptions, and mobility culture shape children's independent travel.</p> <p>Despite growing support for active and autonomous mobility programs, key questions remain about their long-term impact. How these initiatives influence children's civic engagement, community participation, and development as autonomous individuals requires further investigation. Identifying the conditions that enable meaningful participation—and the barriers that hinder it—is essential for strengthening these efforts through more rigorous, evidence-based research. Ultimately, child-friendly urban design that supports independent mobility can contribute to safer, more inclusive, and sustainable cities (Giles-Corti et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]; Silva, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref30">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite its well-documented benefits, children's active mobility remains constrained by persistent barriers. Inadequate infrastructure, heavy traffic, unsafe pedestrian routes, and parental safety concerns continue to limit children's freedom of movement (Carver et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]; Timperio et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]). Social and cultural dynamics—such as overprotective parenting and a lack of community-based support—further contribute to this decline (Janssen & LeBlanc, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]; Malone, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref34">28</reflink>]). These challenges are compounded by urban planning policies prioritizing motorized transport over walkable, child-friendly environments (Giles-Corti et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Parental perceptions of neighborhood safety are critical in shaping children's mobility. Concerns regarding crime rates, heavy traffic, and hazardous intersections often deter parents from allowing their children to walk or cycle to school (Shaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]; Veitch et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref37">48</reflink>]). Additionally, modern parenting trends emphasizing close supervision and structured activities reduce opportunities for children to develop autonomy through free movement within their communities (Karsten, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). While numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of active and autonomous school travel, much research has focused on physical health outcomes. Active mobility is associated with lower rates of childhood obesity (Janssen & LeBlanc, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]), fewer social and behavioral issues (McDonald et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref40">29</reflink>]; Sallis et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref41">38</reflink>]), and higher overall physical activity levels (Mackett et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref42">27</reflink>]; Schoeppe et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref43">40</reflink>]). Given the increasing prevalence of childhood obesity, daily movement—especially through active school travel—is considered a key factor in children's health and well-being (Torsheim et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref44">46</reflink>]). Reduced physical activity during daily routines, including school commutes, has been linked to weight gain and obesity in children (Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]; Fox, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]; Rosenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref47">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, the benefits of autonomous and active mobility in childhood extend beyond physical health. Research shows that it supports cognitive and emotional development by enhancing concentration at school (Hermida et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>]), environmental awareness (Preiss, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>]; Veitch et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref50">48</reflink>]), ecological sensitivity (Silva, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref51">42</reflink>]), and children's sense of autonomy and independence (Tonucci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref52">44</reflink>]). It also contributes to broader well-being and life satisfaction (Carver et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]; Lopez-Centeno et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref54">26</reflink>]). Furthermore, social aspects examined in these contexts suggest that active and autonomous mobility fosters peer interaction, strengthens relationships with the surrounding environment (Prezza et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref55">34</reflink>]; Veitch et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref56">48</reflink>]), and builds a sense of belonging within the community (Prezza & Pacilli, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref57">34</reflink>]). Despite these multidimensional benefits, children's own perceptions of their school journeys remain underexplored. Understanding how they experience and interpret their mobility environments is crucial for identifying the factors that support or limit their independence.</p> <p>To address these gaps, this study employs a participatory, creative methodology—drawing—to explore how children perceive and experience their school journeys. Unlike traditional research methods such as surveys or observational studies, drawing enables children to visually express their lived experiences, capturing aspects of their mobility that might otherwise be overlooked. By analyzing these visual representations, this study seeks to identify key environmental and infrastructural elements that children perceive as either supporting or hindering their independent mobility (Dockett & Perry, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>]; Kalvaitis & Monhardt, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref60">20</reflink>]). This qualitative approach is grounded in participatory research traditions that assign a central role to children's voices in the design of urban spaces and educational policy (Clark & Moss, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]). It ensures that their perspectives inform efforts to create safer, more inclusive, and autonomy-supportive mobility environments.</p> <p>While the physical and cognitive benefits of active school travel are well documented, children's subjective experiences of mobility remain underexplored. Most research has emphasized external factors—such as parental influence, neighborhood safety, and infrastructure (Shaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref62">41</reflink>]; Veitch et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref63">48</reflink>])—but has paid less attention to how children themselves interpret and navigate these conditions. Using a child-centered, visual methodology, this study offers new insights into how children make sense of their school journeys, what they perceive as barriers or facilitators, and how broader social, economic, and environmental factors shape these perceptions.</p> <p>This study is guided by the overarching research question: <emph>How do children perceive and represent their school journeys through drawings?</emph> More specifically, it aims to:</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>) identify the key infrastructural and environmental features that children view as facilitators or barriers to mobility; m(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>) examine how social and economic contexts shape children's perceptions of safety, autonomy, and movement; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>) inform urban planning and policy efforts aimed at creating child-friendly environments that support independent mobility.</p> <p>Beyond identifying the elements children associate with mobility, this research also examines how their perspectives align—or conflict—with those of policymakers, urban planners, and caregivers. By taking a child-centered approach, the study offers empirical insights to guide interventions that enhance autonomy while addressing parental concerns and infrastructural barriers. In doing so, it advances the development of urban environments that support independent, active school travel. It ensures that children's perspectives are central to broader conversations about sustainability, mobility, and child-friendly design.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191453678-4">Participants</hd> <p>This study followed the ethical guidelines of the University of the Basque Country, including compliance with data protection and research integrity standards. A total of 659 students from the 5 th and 6 th years of Primary Education participated, drawn from seven educational centers in the Basque Autonomous Community (northern Spain). Of these, 56.4% were 5 th-year students (<emph>n</emph> = 372) and 43.6% were 6 th-year students (<emph>n</emph> = 287). The sample included 315 boys (47.7%), 329 girls (49.8%), and three students (0.3%) who identified as 'other.' Regarding school transportation, 44.1% of participants walked (<emph>n</emph> = 289), 36.8% took the bus (<emph>n</emph> = 241), 8.1% used a bicycle (<emph>n</emph> = 53), 6.9% arrived by car (<emph>n</emph> = 45), and 3.5% used a scooter (<emph>n</emph> = 23). One student used the subway (0.2%), and three (0.5%) reported other means of travel.</p> <p>The full sample of 659 students came from seven educational centers in the Basque Autonomous Community (northern Spain). Demographic and transportation data are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Of the participating schools, four were public (66.6%) and two were private (33.3%). Similarly, four were located in urban areas (66.6%) and two in rural settings (33.3%). All schools followed the D linguistic model, meaning all subjects were taught in Basque, except for Spanish language instruction.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left"><p>n</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>School Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>5th Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>372</p></td><td align="left"><p>56.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>6th Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>287</p></td><td align="left"><p>43.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>Boys</p></td><td align="left"><p>315</p></td><td align="left"><p>47.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Girls</p></td><td align="left"><p>329</p></td><td align="left"><p>49.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mode of Transport</p></td><td align="left"><p>Walking</p></td><td align="left"><p>289</p></td><td align="left"><p>44.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Bus</p></td><td align="left"><p>241</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Bicycle</p></td><td align="left"><p>53</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Car</p></td><td align="left"><p>45</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Scooter</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Subway</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.5</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 Descriptive characteristics of schools</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Type</p></td><td align="left"><p>Public</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>66.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Private</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Context</p></td><td align="left"><p>Rural</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>66.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Urban</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Linguistic model</p></td><td align="left"><p>D (all subjects taught in Basque, except Spanish)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191453678-5">Instrument</hd> <p>Drawing was employed as the primary data collection method, following participatory creative methodologies that amplify children's voices in research (Elden, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref67">10</reflink>]). These methods facilitate the expression of lived experiences by allowing children to visually articulate their perspectives on mobility (Johnson & West, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref68">19</reflink>]; Winstone et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref69">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Drawings function as a form of visual discourse, enabling children to represent their social and cultural environments (Dockett & Perry, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref71">9</reflink>]). Focusing on self-generated depictions over adult-led interpretations makes children's thinking and perceptions visible (Rengifo, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref72">35</reflink>]). Drawings also provide access to the subjective meanings children attach to their mobility experiences—insights that might not emerge through verbal or written methods.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-6">Procedure</hd> <p>Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of the Basque Country prior to data collection [Ref.: M10/2020/297]. The study adhered to institutional guidelines, including compliance with data protection and research integrity standards. Parents and students were fully informed about the study and provided written consent. No incentives were offered for participation. To explore children's representations of their school journeys, participants were asked to complete a freehand drawing in response to the prompt: <emph>"</emph><emph>Draw what the journey from your house to school looks like</emph>.<emph>"</emph> No additional constraints were imposed, allowing for spontaneous and individualized depictions. Drawings were completed during class time, with minimal guidance from teachers to ensure that children's representations were as authentic and uninfluenced as possible.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-7">Data Analysis</hd> <p>NVivo 12 (QSR International) was used to manage and analyze the visual data, including both the children's drawings and associated socio-demographic information (age, gender, and mode of transportation). The drawings were examined through visual content analysis—a systematic approach that identifies and categorizes recurring visual elements to reveal underlying patterns (Rose, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref73">36</reflink>]). This technique involves a detailed examination of images to detect features that may otherwise be overlooked (Kalvaitis & Monhardt, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]; Schnettler & Raab, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref75">52</reflink>]). The analysis was guided by three principles: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>) identifying key visual elements, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) recording their frequency, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>) interpreting their significance within the context of children's mobility (Kalvaitis & Monhardt, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref79">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>To further structure the analysis, the study adopted the principles of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref80">15</reflink>]), which emphasizes developing theory directly from empirical data rather than starting with a predefined hypothesis. This approach integrates data collection and analysis in an iterative process to generate inductive insights about a specific area of study. In this case, the aim was to conceptualize how children perceive and represent their school mobility experiences. The outcome of the analysis was a set of thematic categories and conceptual relationships grounded in the visual data (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>The drawings were systematically coded to identify frequently depicted elements, including landmarks, mobility facilitators, and obstacles. This process followed an iterative approach, with patterns refined through repeated review and categorization. The resulting themes were compared across different modes of mobility to explore variations in how children perceived their school journeys. The analysis focused on four primary categories. The first, <emph>reference points</emph>, included key landmarks such as homes, schools, transport stations, and buildings that helped structure the journey. <emph>Obstructive elements</emph> refer to barriers that hinder mobility, including pedestrian crossings, roads, roundabouts, bridges, slopes, traffic lights, and vehicular traffic. <emph>Environmental characteristics</emph> captured the physical setting of the journey, particularly the contrast between asphalted areas and green spaces—highlighting the predominance of urban environments. Finally, <emph>facilitators</emph> described infrastructure that supported active and independent travel, such as wide sidewalks and bike lanes that improve safety and accessibility. This coding framework supported a deeper understanding of the factors shaping children's mobility experiences and informed broader discussions around child-centered urban planning and policy.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-8">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191453678-9">Overview of Coded Elements</hd> <p>A total of 659 drawings were collected from seven educational centers, yielding 2,320 coded elements across the predefined categories. Of these drawings, 56.4% were created by 5 th-grade students and 43.6% by 6 th-grade students. The analysis identified four main categories: <emph>reference points</emph>, which represented landmarks in the journey (<emph>n</emph> = 1,429; 61.6%); <emph>obstructive</emph> elements, or barriers to movement (<emph>n</emph> = 528; 22.8%); <emph>environmental</emph> characteristics describing the physical surroundings (<emph>n</emph> = 268; 11.6%); and <emph>facilitators</emph>, or features that support safe and independent mobility (<emph>n</emph> = 95; 4.1%).</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-10">Reference Points in Children's Drawings</hd> <p>Various elements in the children's drawings appeared as landmarks representing their school journeys. A total of 1,429 elements were coded as reference points. The most frequently depicted were the child's own home (<emph>n</emph> = 430; 30.1%) and their school (<emph>n</emph> = 463; 32.4%). Other commonly illustrated reference points included transport stations (<emph>n</emph> = 110; 7.7%) and houses along the route (<emph>n</emph> = 105; 7.3%) (see Table 3; Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Landmark examples</p> <p>Table 3 Reference points</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Categorized element</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Church</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Meeting point</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>37</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Police</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>463</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Houses</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>105</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Factory</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Station</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>110</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Font</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Commerce</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>90</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Friend's house</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Own house</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>430</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Clinic</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Play area</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>90</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Parking</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>26</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Town hall</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1429</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191453678-11">Obstructive Elements in the Journey</hd> <p>The category of obstructive elements (<emph>n</emph> = 340) included various barriers identified in the children's drawings. The most frequently depicted were zebra crossings (<emph>n</emph> = 153; 29.0%), followed by roads (<emph>n</emph> = 95; 18.0%), roundabouts (<emph>n</emph> = 86; 16.3%), bridges (<emph>n</emph> = 80; 15.2%), and hills (<emph>n</emph> = 66; 12.5%). Less frequently noted were cars (<emph>n</emph> = 31; 5.9%), traffic lights (<emph>n</emph> = 16; 3.0%), and traffic congestion (<emph>n</emph> = 1; 0.2%) (see Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Examples of obstructive elements</p> <p>This category reflects elements that children perceive as hindrances to their school journeys. Zebra crossings were the most frequently identified obstacle (<emph>n</emph> = 153; 29.0%), followed by roads (<emph>n</emph> = 95; 18.0%), roundabouts (<emph>n</emph> = 86; 16.3%), bridges (<emph>n</emph> = 80; 15.2%), and hills (<emph>n</emph> = 66; 12.5%). Cars (<emph>n</emph> = 31; 5.9%), traffic lights (<emph>n</emph> = 16; 3.0%), and traffic congestion (<emph>n</emph> = 1; 0.2%) appeared less frequently (see Fig. 2). These drawings suggest that children often view everyday infrastructural features—typically considered neutral or even safety-enhancing by adults—as barriers to their mobility. A detailed breakdown of these elements is provided in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4 Obstructive elements</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Categorized element</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Cost</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>66</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Roundabout</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>86</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Highway</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>95</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Car</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Traffic light</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Traffic</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Zebra crossing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>153</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bridges</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>80</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>528</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The presence of obstructive elements varied across drawings, reflecting differences in urban landscapes and traffic conditions. Notably, pedestrian infrastructure—particularly zebra crossings and roads—emerged as a significant concern for children. These results highlight that children often perceive features typically intended to support safe mobility as obstacles along their school routes.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-12">Environmental Elements in the Drawings</hd> <p>The children's drawings primarily depicted two types of environmental features: asphalt (<emph>n</emph> = 181; 67.5%) and green areas (<emph>n</emph> = 87; 32.5%). The predominance of asphalt suggests that most school journeys occur in highly urbanized settings (see Fig. 3).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Environmental elements</p> <p>The dominance of asphalt in the drawings suggests that children primarily associate their school journeys with built, rather than natural, environments. This contrast between asphalt and green areas may reflect disparities in urban design and access to green space along school routes. While some drawings included parks, trees, or other vegetation, most depicted streets lined with paved roads and sidewalks. These patterns indicate that, despite the known benefits of green environments for children's well-being and mobility, their daily travel experiences remain shaped by asphalt-heavy infrastructure.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-13">Facilitators of School Mobility</hd> <p>Facilitators —elements that enhance safety and accessibility—were the least frequently depicted category (<emph>n</emph> = 91; 8%). The most common were wide pedestrian pathways (<emph>n</emph> = 61; 64.2%) and bike lanes (<emph>n</emph> = 34; 35.8%) (see Fig. 4).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Examples of facilitators</p> <p>These features are key in shaping children's mobility experiences by contributing to safer, more structured routes. The presence of wide pedestrian paths suggests that children recognize and value designated walking areas that provide separation from vehicular traffic. Likewise, the depiction of bike lanes reflects an awareness of infrastructure that supports non-motorized travel and fosters independence while reducing interactions with cars.</p> <p>The presence of facilitating elements in the drawings varied according to students' mobility patterns. Schools with higher levels of active mobility (> 70%) included more depictions of supportive infrastructure, such as pedestrian paths and bike lanes, compared to schools with lower active mobility (< 70%; <50%) (see Table 5; Figs. 5, 6 and 7). This suggests that environments where walking or cycling is more common are perceived as better equipped to support independent travel. In contrast, drawings from schools with lower active mobility featured fewer facilitators, reinforcing the idea that infrastructure deficiencies may discourage active and autonomous mobility.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Examples from schools with AM > 70%. AM autonomous mobility</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6 Examples from schools with AM < 70% & >50%</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 7 Examples from schools with AM < 50%</p> <p>Table 5 Obstructive and facilitating elements by level of active mobility in school centers (> 70%, < 70% & > 50% & < 50%)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>School Center</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>AM</p><p>>70%</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>AM</p><p><italic><70% & >50%</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>AM</p><p><50%</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Total</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>N= 297</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>N=156</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>N=170</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>N=623</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Obstructive Elements</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>228</p></td><td align="left"><p>76.76%</p></td><td align="left"><p>141</p></td><td align="left"><p>90.38%</p></td><td align="left"><p>159</p></td><td align="left"><p>93.52%</p></td><td align="left"><p>528</p></td><td align="left"><p>84.75%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Slopes</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.68</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>55</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>66</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Roundabouts</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.66</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>86</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.80</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Roads</p></td><td align="left"><p>46</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.48</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.66</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>95</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cars</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.36</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.97</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Traffic Lights</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.56</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Traffic</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Zebra Crossings</p></td><td align="left"><p>107</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td align="left"><p>19.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>153</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bridges</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.42</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.15</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>80</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.84</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Facilitating Elements</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>69</p></td><td align="left"><p>23.23%</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.47%</p></td><td align="left"><p>95</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.24%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wide pedestrian paths</p></td><td align="left"><p>44</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.81</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>61</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.79</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bike lanes</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.42</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>General</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>297</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>156</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>170</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>623</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These findings underscore the role of urban planning in shaping children's mobility experiences. Drawings from students attending schools with higher rates of active travel suggest that pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly infrastructure contributes to their sense of safety and accessibility. The most commonly identified facilitators were wide pedestrian pathways (<emph>n</emph> = 61, 64.2%) and bike lanes (<emph>n</emph> = 34, 35.8%).</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-14">Differences in Mobility Patterns</hd> <p>Differences in the depiction of obstructive and facilitating elements were closely linked to students' levels of active mobility. In schools where more than 70% of students used active transportation, drawings contained fewer obstructive elements and more facilitators. In contrast, schools with lower active mobility rates (< 50%) showed obstructive elements in 93.5% of the drawings and depicted far fewer facilitators. These patterns suggest that children in more walkable environments perceive their routes as safer and better supported by infrastructure, whereas students in less walkable settings emphasize barriers in their school journeys (see Table 6; Figs. 5, 6 and 7).</p> <p>Table 6 Frequency of environmental elements in drawings by active mobility Leve (> 70%, < 70% & < 50%)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>School Center</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>AM</p><p>>70%</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>AM</p><p><70%</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>AM</p><p><50%</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Total</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Environmental Element</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>N= 94</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>N=53</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>N=111</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>N=258</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Asphalt</p></td><td align="left"><p>61</p></td><td align="left"><p>64.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p></td><td align="left"><p>67.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>84</p></td><td align="left"><p>75.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>181</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.15</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Green Zones</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>35.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>77</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.85</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General</p></td><td align="left"><p>94</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>53</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>111</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>258</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These findings highlight the influence of school environments and urban infrastructure on how children perceive mobility safety and accessibility. In settings with higher levels of active mobility, children's drawings reflected more supportive infrastructure and fewer perceived barriers. This suggests that daily exposure to walkable, bike-friendly environments not only facilitates active travel but also shapes how children cognitively map and evaluate their routes. Conversely, in schools with lower active mobility, the frequent depiction of obstructive elements points to environments that may discourage independence and reinforce perceptions of risk.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-15">Differences in Environmental Features Based on Active Mobility Levels</hd> <p>The environmental features depicted in children's drawings varied according to their school's level of active mobility. Drawings from schools with high active mobility (> 70%) showed a greater presence of green areas (35.1%) compared to those from schools with moderate (32.1%) and low (24.3%) active mobility. Despite these differences, asphalt remained the dominant feature across all settings, suggesting that most children experience school routes primarily defined by built environments (see Figs. 8, 9 and 10).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 8 Examples from schools with AM < 70%</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 9 Examples from schools with AM < 70% & <50%</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 10 Examples from schools with AM < 50%</p> <p>The depiction of environmental features varied with students' levels of active mobility. In schools where active mobility was high (> 70%), 35.1% of drawings included green areas, compared to 32.1% in schools with moderate active mobility (< 70%) and 24.3% in schools with the lowest levels (< 50%). These differences suggest that children in more walkable environments may be more exposed to or aware of natural features along their routes. However, asphalt remained the dominant feature across all schools, underscoring how urban infrastructure continues to define the landscape of children's daily mobility (Figs. 8, 9 and 10).</p> <p>These findings highlight important differences in how children perceive their mobility experiences, reinforcing the influence of urban infrastructure on their ability to travel safely and independently to school. The implications of these results are further explored in the discussion section.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-16">Discussion and Conclusions</hd> <p>The school journey is a routine part of children's lives that is often overlooked despite its potential impact on their development. As an experience repeated throughout the year, it deserves closer attention. This study addressed that gap using a participatory methodology tailored to children's needs and preferences. Using drawing as a research tool allowed for exploring how children perceive their environments in a natural and minimally mediated way.</p> <p>The analysis of drawings across different municipalities revealed many obstacles that limit children's ability to travel to school actively and autonomously. In particular, the drawings illustrated physical barriers such as roads, roundabouts, bridges, and traffic-heavy zones—echoing findings from earlier studies on the architectural and infrastructural challenges children face (Carver et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>]; Fyhri et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref83">13</reflink>]; Horelli, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref84">17</reflink>]; Kyttä, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref85">22</reflink>]; Timperio et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref86">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Clear differences also emerged between students who walk to school and those who rely on motorized transportation. Walkers tended to depict more green spaces, offer greater detail in their routes, and highlight pedestrian-friendly features like bike lanes and wide sidewalks. In contrast, children who travel by car or bus focused more on roads and obstructive elements, reflecting a more car-centric view of their environment.</p> <p>Additionally, children with lower levels of autonomous mobility also depicted more obstacles overall—zebra crossings, slopes, cars, traffic congestion, and other barriers—many of which align with those reported in previous studies (Hermida et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref87">16</reflink>]; McMillan, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref88">30</reflink>]). However, by applying a drawing-based methodology, this study uniquely captures children's perspectives in their own visual language. These findings reinforce the need to rethink urban design to create safer, more inclusive school routes—not only by improving infrastructure but also by addressing psychological barriers such as fear and perceived risk that inhibit children's independence.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-17">Diversity Considerations in School Mobility</hd> <p>This study highlights how socioeconomic and environmental diversity shapes children's mobility experiences. Differences in school journey representations suggest that children from areas with higher levels of active mobility typically benefit from access to better pedestrian infrastructure. In contrast, those from lower-mobility regions face greater challenges linked to urban design constraints. These disparities may be compounded by socioeconomic status, geographical location, and family access to private transportation, all of which can affect children's ability to navigate their environments independently.</p> <p>Furthermore, the use of participatory drawing as a research method also supports the inclusion of diverse voices—particularly those who may find traditional surveys or interviews limiting. This approach is especially valuable for children with disabilities, neurodiverse learners, or those from multilingual backgrounds, as it offers an alternative mode of expression that does not rely solely on verbal or written communication. Prior research has called for inclusive methodologies recognizing varied ways of articulating lived experience (Johnson & West, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>]; Winstone et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref90">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present findings should be interpreted in light of certain contextual limitations. The data reflect children's experiences within a specific geographic and cultural setting and may not be generalizable to populations in different sociocultural contexts. Future research should examine how factors such as gender identity, disability, and cultural background intersect with children's mobility experiences. Such work is essential to ensure that urban planning and policy initiatives address a wider range of needs and promote equitable access to independent mobility.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-18">Implications for Urban Planning and Policy</hd> <p>Achieving more accessible, high-quality, and inclusive environments where children can safely play, socialize, and move requires integrating their perspectives into urban planning. It is essential to involve children in decision-making processes, upholding their right to use public space and ensuring their voices shape the environments they navigate daily (Tonucci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref91">44</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref92">45</reflink>]). Participatory approaches that engage children in evaluating and co-designing their surroundings offer valuable insight into both the barriers they face and the assets within their communities. Such involvement contributes to building social capital and advancing a more inclusive vision of urban development (Lobo et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref93">25</reflink>]; McMillan, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref94">30</reflink>]). This study's drawing-based methodology supported the inclusion of diverse perspectives, particularly from children who may be marginalized in conventional research settings. By accommodating varied communication styles, the technique enabled the participation of students with different linguistic, cognitive, or cultural backgrounds—voices that are often overlooked in traditional data collection methods (Johnson & West, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref95">19</reflink>]; Winstone et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref96">51</reflink>]). As a tool for inclusive research and policy design, participatory drawing methods offer a meaningful path toward child-centered urban planning.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>Fostering active and autonomous mobility requires continued support for municipal and educational initiatives that enable children to travel to school safely. As this study demonstrates, such efforts not only enhance children's independence but also contribute to a broader cultural shift in how urban environments are experienced and navigated. The findings underscore the importance of pedestrian-friendly planning, removing infrastructural barriers, and integrating children's perspectives in shaping mobility policies. Approaching mobility through an inclusive lens enables more comprehensive urban strategies that prioritize children's needs while promoting broader community well-being. By embedding diverse perspectives into research and policymaking, societies can move toward environments that uphold children's rights to independent, safe, and confident movement in their daily lives.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-20">Funding</hd> <p>Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.</p> <p>KideOn. Research Group of the Basque Government, Ref.: IT1342-19 (A category). The open access publication of this article has been funded by the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-21">Data Availability</hd> <p>The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the data used in this study. The original data and analyses have been thoroughly reviewed, and any reasonable request for data access will be considered in accordance with ethical guidelines and institutional policies.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-22">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191453678-23">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this study. There are no financial, personal, or professional affiliations that could be perceived as influencing the research outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0191453678-24">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191453678-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bhosale J, Duncan S, Schofield G, Page A, Cooper A. A pilot study exploring the measurement of intergenerational differences in independent mobility. Journal of Transport & Health. 2015; 2; 4: 522-528. 10.1016/j.jth.2015.08.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref31" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Carver A, Timperio AF, Crawford DA. Young and free? A study of independent mobility among urban and rural dwelling Australian children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2012; 15; 6: 505-510. 10.1016/j.jsams.2012.03.005. 22497720</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Carver A, Panter JR, Jones AP, van Sluijs EM. Independent mobility on the journey to school: A joint cross-sectional and prospective exploration of social and physical environmental influences. Journal of Transport & Health. 2014; 1; 1: 25-32. 10.1016/j.jth.2013.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref81" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-BiberP.Leavy (Ed.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–172). Ghuilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref61" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Clark, A, & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach. National Children's Bureau.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref45" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cooper AR, Page AS, Foster LJ, Qahwaji D. Commuting to school– Are children who walk more physically active?. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003; 25; 4: 273-276. 10.1016/S0749-3797(03)00205-8. 14580626</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref58" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dockett S, Perry B. Children's drawings: Experiences and expectations of school. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2005; 13; 1: 5-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref59" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dockett S, Perry B. Researching with children: Insights from the starting school research project. Early Child Development and Care. 2005; 175; 6: 507-521. 10.1080/03004430500131312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eldén S. Scripts for the 'good couple': Individualization and the reproduction of gender inequality. Acta Sociológica. 2012; 55; 1: 3-18. 10.1177/0001699311427745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faulkner G, Buliung R, Flora P, Fusco C. Active school transport, physical activity levels and body weight of children and youth: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine. 2010; 48; 1: 3-8. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.10.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox T. Corporate social responsibility and development: In quest of an agenda. Development. 2004; 47; 3: 29-36. 10.1057/palgrave.development.1100064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fyhri A, Hjorthol R, Mackett RL, Fotel TN, Kyttä M. Children's active travel and independent mobility in four countries: Development, social contributing trends and measures. Transport Policy. 2011; 18; 5: 703-710. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.01.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giles-Corti B, Wood G, Pikora T, Learnihan V, Bulsara M, Timperio A. School site and the potential to walk to school: The impact of street connectivity and density on children's school travel. Health & Place. 2011; 17; 2: 545-550. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser, B. G, & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hermida C, Naranjo G, Peña J, Quezada A, Orellana D. Avances En El Conocimiento de La relación Entre La movilidad activa a La escuela y El Entorno urbano. Revista De Urbanismo. 2021; 45: 182-198. 10.5354/0717-5051.2021.58168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horelli L. A comparison of children's autonomous mobility and environmental participation in Northern and Southern Europe—The cases of Finland and Italy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2001; 11; 6: 451-455. 10.1002/casp.644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janssen I, LeBlanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2010; 7; 1: 1-16. 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, V, & West, A. (2021). Approaches and creative research methods with children and youth. In D. Burns, J. Howard & S. M. Ospina (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Participatory Research and Inquiry (pp. 306–321).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalvaitis D, Monhardt RM. The architecture of children's relationships with nature: A phenomenographic investigation seen through drawings and written narratives of elementary students. Environmental Education Research. 2012; 18; 2: 209-227. 10.1080/13504622.2011.598227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karsten L. It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children's daily use of space. Children's Geographies. 2005; 3; 3: 275-290. 10.1080/14733280500352912</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyttä M. The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2004; 24; 2: 179-198. 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00073-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lay-Lisboa S, Montañés Serrano M. De La participación adultocéntrica a La disidente: La Otra participación infantil. Psicoperspectivas. 2018; 17; 2: 55-66. 10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol17-Issue2-fulltext-1176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legorburu, I, Idoiaga Mondragon, N, Alonso, I, & Berasategi, N. (2022). Why are you allowed to go to school on your own? Exploring children's voices on independent mobility. Children & Society, 36(6), 1111–1125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lobo E, Ayllon E, Eito M, Lozano A, Martínez S, Bañares L, Moreno P. La Ciudad de Las Niñas y Los Niños de Huesca, Una oportunidad En El Diseño de Entornos y políticas públicas Saludables. Gaceta Sanitaria. 2019; 33: 296-298. 10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.04.011. 30029807</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López-Centeno FD, Gálvez-Fernández P, Herrador-Colmenero M, Lara-Sánchez AJ. Intervención educativa Para incentivar hábitos de Desplazamiento activo al colegio En escolares de primaria. Journal of Sport and Health Research. 2021; 13; 2: 331-346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackett RL, Brown B, Gong Y, Kitazawa K, Paskins J. Children's independent movement in the local environment. Built Environment. 2007; 33; 4: 454-470. 10.2148/benv.33.4.454</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malone, K. (2007). The bubble-wrap generation: Children growing up in walled gardens. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald NC, Deakin E, Aalborg AE. Influence of the social environment on children's school travel. Preventive Medicine. 2010; 50: S65-S68. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.016. 19796654</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMillan TE. The relative influence of urban form on a child's travel mode to school. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2007; 41; 1: 69-79. 10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitra R, Buliung RN. Built environment correlates of active school transportation: Neighborhood and the modifiable areal unit problem. Journal of Transport Geography. 2012; 20; 1: 51-61. 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris S, Lawlor ER, Foley L, Summerbell C, Panter J, Adams J, Pollard TM. Children's experiences of the journey between home and school: A qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography. Health & Place. 2022; 76: 102819. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102819</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preiss, D. (1989). Frauen– Kinder– Auto– Träume. Elefanten.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prezza M, Pilloni S, Morabito C, Sersante C, Aparone FR, Guiliani MV. The influence of psychosocial and environmental factors on children's independent mobility and relationship to peer frequentation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2001; 11: 435-450. 10.1002/casp.643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rengifo, T. R. (2019). De narrativas y hermenéuticas a la visibilización de los actores principales: los niños, las niñas y los jóvenes. Revista PACA, 9, 71–92</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose N. ¿La muerte de lo social? Re-configuración Del territorio de gobierno. Revista argentina De Sociología. 2007; 5; 8: 111-150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenberg D, Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Norman GJ, Durant N, Harris SK, Saelens BE. Neighborhood environment walkability scale for youth (NEWS-Y): Reliability and relationship with physical activity. Preventive Medicine. 2009; 49; 2–3: 213-218. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.011. 19632263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sallis, J. F, Prochaska, J. J, & Taylor, W. C. (2000). A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(5), 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200005000-00014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Save the Children (2013). Memoria Anual 2013. https://<ulink href="http://www.savethechildren.es/sites/default/files/imce/docs/memoria-anual-sce-2013.pdf">www.savethechildren.es/sites/default/files/imce/docs/memoria-anual-sce-2013.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schoeppe S, Duncan MJ, Badland H, Oliver M, Curtis C. Associations of children's independent mobility and active travel with physical activity, sedentary behaviour and weight status: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2013; 16; 4: 312-319. 10.1016/j.jsams.2012.11.001. 23219100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, B, Bicket, M, Elliott, B, Fagan-Watson, B, Mocca, E, & Hillman, M. (2015). Children's independent mobility: An international comparison and recommendations for action. Policy Studies Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silva Piñeiro, R. (2018). Los proyectos de caminata rumbo a la escuela para el conocimiento del entorno y favorecer actitudes y hábitos saludables desde educación infantil. Educación, 27(53), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.18800/educacion.201802.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timperio, A, Crawford, D, Telford, A, & Salmon, J. (2004). Perceptions about the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children. Preventive Medicine, 38(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tonucci, F. (2015). La ciudad de los niños. Grao.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tonucci F. The City of children: A sustainable project for urban development. Children Youth and Environments. 2017; 27; 1: 112-122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torsheim T, Currie C, Boyce W, Kalnins I, Overpeck M, Haugland S. Material deprivation and self-rated health: A multilevel study of adolescents from 22 European and North American countries. Social Science & Medicine. 2004; 59; 1: 1-12. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://<ulink href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-childConventionontheRightsoftheChild">www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-childConventionontheRightsoftheChild</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veitch J, Carver A, Salmon J, Abbott G, Ball K, Crawford D, Cleland V, Timperio A. What predicts children's active transport and independent mobility in disadvantaged neighborhoods?. Health & Place. 2017; 44: 103-109. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villanueva, K, Giles-Corti, B, Bulsara, M, Timperio, A, McCormack, G, Beesley, B,. & Middleton, N. (2013). Where do children travel to and what local opportunities are available? The relationship between neighborhood destinations and children's independent mobility. Environment and Behavior, 45(6), 679–705.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winstone, N, Nash, R. A, Rowntree, J, & Parker, M. (2014). Children's drawings of their school: A visual method for exploring perceptions of school climate. In C. Burke & K. Jones (Eds.), Education, Childhood and Anarchism: Talking Colin Ward (pp. 101–117). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schnettler, B, & Raab, J. (2012). Análisis visual interpretativo: avances, estado del arte y problemas pendientes. Paradigmas, 4(2), 79–122</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Naiara Berasategi Sancho; Amaia Eiguren Munitis; Idoia Legorburu Legorburu Fernandez and Nahia Idoiaga Idoiaga-Mondragon</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref93"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1505866
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Children's Active and Autonomous School Journeys and Their Implications: An Investigation Using Drawing Methodology
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Naiara+Berasategi+Sancho%22">Naiara Berasategi Sancho</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1775-3431">0000-0003-1775-3431</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amaia+Eiguren+Munitis%22">Amaia Eiguren Munitis</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-9994">0000-0001-5960-9994</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Idoia+Legorburu+Legorburu+Fernandez%22">Idoia Legorburu Legorburu Fernandez</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3971-3636">0000-0002-3971-3636</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nahia+Idoiaga+Idoiaga-Mondragon%22">Nahia Idoiaga Idoiaga-Mondragon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0345-8570">0000-0003-0345-8570</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+%26+Youth+Care+Forum%22"><i>Child & Youth Care Forum</i></searchLink>. 2026 55(1):227-245.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Mobility%22">Student Mobility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Freehand+Drawing%22">Freehand Drawing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Traffic+Safety%22">Traffic Safety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Planning%22">Urban Planning</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10566-025-09867-3
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1053-1890<br />1573-3319
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Active and autonomous school mobility has various benefits, including improved physical health, environmental awareness, and social integration. However, little research has explored how children perceive their school journeys and the factors that facilitate or hinder their mobility. Objective: This study investigates how children perceive and represent their school journeys through drawings. It identifies key landmarks, obstacles, and facilitators and explores how these perceptions vary according to mobility levels. Methods: A total of 659 students from the 5th and 6th grades of seven educational centers in the Basque Autonomous Community participated. Each student created a drawing depicting their journey to school. The drawings were analyzed using visual content analysis, categorizing elements into four themes: reference points, obstacles, environmental characteristics, and facilitators. Results: Homes and schools were the most frequently depicted landmarks. Children identified obstacles such as roads, roundabouts, and crosswalks--especially in drawings from those with lower active mobility. In contrast, students with higher active mobility included more green spaces and facilitators like pedestrian paths and bike lanes, reflecting a more positive view of their environments. Conclusions: The findings highlight the need for child-centered urban planning that supports active mobility. Enhancing pedestrian infrastructure and integrating children's perspectives into urban design can lead to safer, more engaging school routes that foster autonomy and environmental awareness.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1505866
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1505866
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10566-025-09867-3
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 227
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Mobility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Freehand Drawing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Traffic Safety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Children's Active and Autonomous School Journeys and Their Implications: An Investigation Using Drawing Methodology
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Naiara Berasategi Sancho
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amaia Eiguren Munitis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Idoia Legorburu Legorburu Fernandez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nahia Idoiaga Idoiaga-Mondragon
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1053-1890
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3319
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child & Youth Care Forum
              Type: main
ResultId 1