Skip to main content

Table 2 Mean scores for self-reported neighborhood walkability and reasons for moving to the current neighborhood between high walkable (HW), medium walkable (MW), and low walkable (LW) neighborhood types

From: The associations between objectively-determined and self-reported urban form characteristics and neighborhood-based walking in adults

 

Neighborhood type

 

HW (n = 134)

MW (n = 676)

LW (n = 1065)

mean ± SD (median)

mean ± SD (median)

mean ± SD (median)

Self-reported neighborhood walkability (1.0-4.0 scale)

   

Access to servicesa,c

3.47 ± 0.63 (3.67)

3.35 ± 0.68 (3.67)

3.09 ± 0.73 (3.21)

Physical barriersa

3.51 ± 0.63 (4.00)

3.49 ± 0.63 (3.50)

3.40 ± 0.65 (3.50)

Street connectivitya,b,c

3.21 ± 0.68 (3.33)

3.07 ± 0.62 (3.00)

2.67 ± 0.62 (2.67)

Pedestrian infrastructurea,c

3.09 ± 0.47 (3.00)

3.08 ± 0.46 (3.00)

2.93 ± 0.54 (3.00)

Neighborhood aestheticsa,b

2.91 ± 0.66 (3.00)

3.11 ± 0.62 (3.25)

3.00 ± 0.64 (3.00)

Motor vehicle traffic safetyb,c

2.55 ± 0.61 (2.67)

2.79 ± 0.60 (3.00)

2.81 ± 0.62 (3.00)

Safety from crimea,b,c

2.79 ± 0.72 (2.75)

3.24 ± 0.58 (3.25)

3.39 ± 0.51 (3.50)

Self-reported neighborhood destinations (count of types)

   

Utilitarian destination mixa,b,c

10.78 ± 4.96 (12.00)

9.48 ± 4.47 (10.00)

6.97 ± 4.82 (6.00)

Recreation destination mixa,c

4.61 ± 2.00 (4.50)

4.60 ± 1.83 (5.00)

3.84 ± 1.66 (4.00)

Reasons for neighborhood choice (1.0-3.0 scale)

   

Access to places that support physical activitya

2.00 ± 0.48 (2.00)

1.99 ± 0.49 (2.00)

2.07 ± 0.51 (2.00)

Access to servicesa,c

2.33 ± 0.54 (2.50)

2.25 ± 0.50 (2.25)

2.06 ± 0.50 (2.00)

Sense of communitya,b,c

2.10 ± 0.53 (2.25)

2.32 ± 0.48 (2.50)

2.39 ± 0.48 (2.50)

Ease of drivinga,b,c

1.69 ± 0.63 (1.50)

2.04 ± 0.58 (2.00)

2.11 ± 0.56 (2.00)

  1. a = LW significantly differs from MW (p < .05) based on One Way ANOVA (with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparison).
  2. b = MW significantly differs from HW (p < .05) based on One Way ANOVA (with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparison).
  3. c = LW significantly differs from HW (p < .05) based on One Way ANOVA (with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparison).