Skip to main content

Table 3 Logistic regression and Generalized Linear Model estimates for the association between neighborhood type, self-reported walkability and participation in and minutes of neighborhood-based transportation walking in the last 7-days

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

  Participation in walking for transportation Minutes of walking for transportation
(n = 1875) (among those walking ≥1 times/week; n = 754)
  Model 1a Model 2a Model 3a Model 1b Model 2b Model 3b
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI)* Estimate (95% CI)* Estimate (95% CI)*
Objective neighborhood type       
Low walkable (LW) Ref. Ref. Ref. 114.24 (97.52, 130.96)c 119.83 (101.85, 137.82)c 117.95 (100.49, 135.40)
Medium walkable (MW) 1.40 (1.12, 1.75) 1.04 (0.82, 1.32) 1.07 (0.83, 1.36) 113.97 (96.96, 130.99)b 115.77 (98.59, 132.94)b 115.79 (98.77, 132.80)
High walkable (HW) 2.08 (1.35, 3.19) 1.50 (0.94, 2.41) 1.23 (0.71, 2.15) 178.04 (143.66, 212.42)b,c 167.36 (131.56, 203.16)b,c 140.14 (110.28, 169.99)
Self-reported neighborhood characteristics       
Access to services   1.17 (1.05, 1.32) 1.18 (1.05, 1.32)   -1.01 (-7.03, 5.01) -1.43 (-7.26, 4.40)
Physical barriers   0.93 (0.84, 1.04) 0.93 (0.83, 1.04)   -5.03 (-14.42, 4.37) -1.11 (-7.59, 5.37)
Street connectivity   1.16 (1.03, 1.30) 1.14 (1.02, 1.29)   -1.28 (-8.22, 5.66) 0.58 (-6.48, 7.63)
Pedestrian infrastructure   1.10 (0.99, 1.23) 1.10 (0.99, 1.23)   -2.37 (-11.49, 6.75) 4.96 (-2.08, 12.00)
Neighborhood aesthetics   1.01 (0.90, 1.13) 1.01 (0.90, 1.14)   5.07 (-1.19, 11.33) 5.52 (-1.27, 12.32)
Motor vehicle traffic safety   1.00 (0.90, 1.12) 1.00 (0.90, 1,12)   7.71 (1.61, 13.82) 6.01 (-0.35, 12.36)
Safety from crime   0.95 (0.84, 1.07) 0.97 (0.86, 1.09)   -8.15 (-19.07, 2.77) -11.20 (-19.69, -2.72)
Utilitarian destination mix   1.25 (1.08, 1.44) 1.16 (0.98, 1.37)   6.44 (-1.37, 14.26) 5.54 (-2.42, 13.51)
Recreation destination mix   1.15 (1.00, 1.32) 1.13 (0.98, 1.30)   -9.31 (-17.24, -1.38) -9.70 (-17.64, -1.76)
Interactions       
HW x utilitarian destination mix    2.82 (1.58, 5.06)    
HW x physical barriers       42.14 (17.18, 67.09)
MW x pedestrian infrastructure       15.67 (3.83, 27.51)
HW x safety from crime       -32.36 (-54.48, -10.23)
  1. Model 1a and 1b: adjusted for age, gender, education, home ownership, dependents, years lived in neighborhood, attitude towards walking and reasons for neighborhood choice (access to places supporting physical activity, access to services, sense of community and ease of driving).
  2. Model 2a and 2b: adjusted for model 1 and self-reported neighborhood walkability.
  3. Model 3a and 3b: adjusted for model 2 with statistically significant interaction terms retained in the model.
  4. * = Estimated marginal means are reported for objective neighborhood type; regression coefficients (β) are reported for all other variables.
  5. b = MW significantly differs from HW (p < .05) based on marginal mean estimate from GZLM (with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparison).
  6. c = LW significantly differs from HW (p < .05) based on marginal mean estimate from GZLM (with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparison).
  7. = p < .05.