Skip to main content

Table 1 Results of repeated measures for changes in perception of the neighbourhood environment stratified by "achievers" (n = 44) and "non-achievers" (n = 38) (Total n = 82)

From: The perception of the neighborhood environment changes after participation in a pedometer based community intervention

Themes of neighbour-hood

 

Baseline

Follow-up

Time effect

Time × achiever

Time × baseline

Time × achiever × baseline

  

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

F (p)

F (p)

F (p)

F (p)

Density score

Achievers

103.0 (45.9)

97.8 (29.7)

    
 

Non-achievers

98.7 (37.6)

100.9 (37.5)

    
 

Total

110.0 (42.1)

99.2 (33.4)

0.15 (ns)

0.87 (ns)

0.09 (ns)

0.15 (ns)

Distance score

Achievers

22.8 (5.0)

22.5 (4.4)

    
 

Non-achievers

21.8 (4.2)

19.6 (3.9)

    
 

Total

22.3 (4.7)

21.1 (4.4)

7.20 (**)

3.39 (ns)

1.65 (ns)

0.09 (ns)

Availability of sidewalks

Achievers

4.4 (1.5)

4.8 (1.6)

    
 

Non-achievers

4.1 (1.4)

4.1 (1.4)

    
 

Total

4.3 (1.5)

4.5 (1.6)

1.71 (ns)

1.65 (ns)

0.09 (ns)

0.01 (ns)

Availability of bike lanes

Achievers

2.1 (0.5)

2.4 (0.9)

    
 

Non-achievers

2.2 (0.6)

2.5 (0.8)

    
 

Total

2.2 (0.6)

2.4 (0.8)

7.80 (**)

0.00 (ns)

5.68 (*)a

0.33 (ns)

Availability of infrastructure

Achievers

6.5 (1.6)

7.2 (1.9)

    
 

Non-achievers

6.3 (1.7)

6.6 (1.9)

    
 

Total

6.5 (1.7)

6.9 (1.9)

6.12 (*)

0.89 (ns)

2.08 (ns)

0.13 (ns)

Maintenance of infrastructure

Achievers

5.8 (1.3)

6.5 (1.8)

    
 

Non-achievers

6.3 (1.7)

7.3 (2.2)

    
 

Total

6.0 (1.5)

6.9 (2.0)

20.96(***)

0.45 (ns)

0.60 (ns)

7.56 (**)b

Total safety

Achievers

21.2 (2.5)

21.4 (2.5)

    
 

Non-achievers

21.7 (2.2)

21.2 (2.9)

    
 

Total

21.5 (2.3)

21.3 (2.7)

0.32 (ns)

1.63 (ns)

2.88 (ns)

1.00 (ns)

Safety crime

Achievers

11.1 (1.1)

10.9 (1.2)

    
 

Non-achievers

11.1 (1.1)

10.9 (1.3)

    
 

Total

11.1 (1.1)

10.9 (1.2)

1.19 (ns)

0.01 (ns)

1.11 (ns)

2.83 (ns)

Safety traffic

Achievers

10.1 (1.9)

10.5 (1.7)

    
 

Non-achievers

10.7 (1.3)

10.3 (2.1)

    
 

Total

10.4 (1.6)

10.4 (1.9)

0.00 (ns)

4.05 (*)

3.12 (ns)

0.05 (ns)

Pleasure

Achievers

12.8 (1.7)

13.1 (1.7)

    
 

Non-achievers

13.9 (1.7)

13.9 (3.5)

    
 

Total

13.3 (1.8)

13.4 (2.7)

0.08 (ns)

0.10 (ns)

2.66 (ns)

0.57 (ns)

Aesthetics

Achievers

9.7 (1.4)

9.9 (1.5)

    
 

Non-achievers

10.5 (1.3)

10.8 (3.4)

    
 

Total

10.1 (1.4)

10.3 (2.6)

0.75 (ns)

0.07 (ns)

2.72 (ns)

0.55 (ns)

Network

Achievers

7.7 (1.9)

7.9 (1.9)

    
 

Non-achievers

8.1 (2.0)

8.7 (2.1)

    
 

Total

7.9 (2.0)

8.2 (2.0)

2.93 (ns)

0.49 (ns)

5.44 (*)c

1.25 (ns)

Connectivity

Achievers

6.2 (1.8)

6.2 (1.7)

    
 

Non-achievers

6.6 (1.8)

6.8 (1.7)

    
 

Total

6.4 (1.8)

6.5 (1.7)

0.45 (ns)

0.40 (ns)

3.78 (ns)

1.06 (ns)

Home

Achievers

3.9 (1.5)

3.5 (1.1)

    
 

Non-achievers

4.0 (1.1)

3.8 (1.1)

    
 

Total

3.9 (1.3)

3.6 (1.1)

3.68 (ns)

0.97 (ns)

2.31 (ns)

1.91 (ns)

Work/Study

Achievers

4.2 (2.8)

3.7 (1.7)

    
 

Non-achievers

4.4 (3.1)

3.7 (1.6)

    
 

Total

4.3 (2.9)

3.7 (1.6)

1.83 (ns)

0.20 (ns)

0.33 (ns)

2.74 (ns)

  1. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; ns = not significant (p ≥ 0.05)
  2. a The perceptions concerning the availability of bike lanes increased in participants with high baseline PA (p < 0.001) whereas the perceptions of the participants with low baseline PA didn't change
  3. b Maintenance of infrastructure was perceived more positively after the intervention by participants with low baseline PA, but only in the achievers" (p < 0.05); while for participants with high baseline PA, only the "non-achievers" increased their perception (p < 0.001) after the intervention
  4. c The perception of the network increased in participants with low baseline PA (p < 0.05) whereas the perception of the participants with high baseline PA didn't change