Skip to main content

Table 4 Associations of perceived environmental attributes with transport-related walking (min/wk)

From: Perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with adults’ transport-related walking and cycling: Findings from the USA, Australia and Belgium

Variables

exp(b)

exp (95% CI)

p

STEP 1: Separate models with single environmental attributes

Main effects

Residential density

1.186

1.072, 1.312

<.001

Land use mix-diversity – proximity of destinations

1.110

1.060, 1.161

<.001

Land use mix-diversity – # destinations within 20min walk

1.076

1.029, 1.126

.001

Land use mix-access

1.229

1.157, 1.305

<.001

Not many cul-de-sacs

1.110

1.010, 1.220

.032

Parking difficult near local shopping areas

1.024

0.984, 1.071

.225

Not many barriers in neighborhood

1.064

1.010, 1.121

.020

Street connectivity

1.035

0.971, 1.105

.290

Proximity of transit stop

1.091

1.051, 1.132

<.001

Walking and cycling facilities

1.047

1.002, 1.092

.037

Aesthetics (linear component)*

1.103

0.994, 1.224

.250

Aesthetics (curvilinear smooth)*

F(4.37)=3.60

.005

Traffic safety

0.973

0.932, 1.015

.200

Crime safety

0.987

0.943, 1.033

.568

Interaction effects

Gender by Land use mix-access

   

Association in men

1.299

1.198, 1.408

<.001

Association in women

1.170

1.087, 1.259

<.001

Site by Land use mix-diversity – proximity of destinations

   

Association in Ghent, Belgium

1.436

1.261, 1.635

<.001

Association in Seattle, USA

1.179

1.057, 1.316

.003

Association in Baltimore, USA

1.122

0.996, 1.263

.058

Association in Adelaide, Australia

1.052

0.967, 1.145

.237

Site by Land use mix-diversity - # destinations within 20min walk

   

Association in Ghent, Belgium

1.078

1.041, 1.116

<.001

Association in Seattle, USA

1.038

1.006, 1.071

.020

Association in Baltimore, USA

1.029

0.996, 1.064

.082

Association in Adelaide, Australia

1.005

0.985, 1.025

.632

Site by Land use mix-access

   

Association in Ghent, Belgium

1.465

1.252, 1.716

<.001

Association in Seattle, USA

1.237

1.105, 1.385

<.001

Association in Baltimore, USA

1.268

1.108, 1.451

<.001

Association in Adelaide, Australia

1.139

1.040, 1.248

.005

Site by Aesthetics (linear component)*

   

Association in Ghent, Belgium

1.160

0.867, 1.552

.317

Association in Seattle, USA

1.153

0.827, 1.607

.400

Association in Baltimore, USA

1.005

0.894, 1.129

.937

Association in Adelaide, Australia

1.030

0.959, 1.106

.421

Site by Aesthetics (curvilinear smooth)*

   

Association in Ghent, Belgium

F(2.50)=3.64

.018

Association in Seattle, USA

F(2.81)=6.92

<.001

Association in Baltimore, USA

F(0.67)=0.01

.840

Association in Adelaide, Australia

F(1.78)=0.21

.789

STEP 2: Model with multiple environmental attributes and interaction effects #

Residential density

1.003

1.002, 1.003

<.001

Gender by Land use mix-access

   

Association in men

1.248

1.182, 1.318

<.001

Association in women

1.112

1.038, 1.213

.004

Site by Land use mix-diversity – proximity of destinations

Association in Ghent, Belgium

1.351

1.267, 1.440

<.001

Association in Seattle, USA

1.066

0.995, 1.191

.253

Association in Baltimore, USA

1.028

0.912, 1.159

.652

Association in Adelaide, Australia

0.981

0.900, 1.070

.667

Site by Aesthetics (linear component)*

Association in Ghent, Belgium

1.081

0.829, 1.410

.565

Association in Seattle, USA

1.094

0.804, 1.488

.568

Association in Baltimore, USA

1.022

0.912, 1.146

.708

Association in Adelaide, Australia

1.014

0.945, 1.087

.706

Site by Aesthetics (curvilinear smooth)*

Association in Ghent, Belgium

F(2.28)=4.27

.011

Association in Seattle, USA

F(3.23)=4.40

.003

Association in Baltimore, USA

F(0.69)=0.21

.555

Association in Adelaide, Australia

F(1.13)=0.12

.760

STEP 3: Models with composite environmental index of walkability ##

Main effect

Index (Residential density + Land use mix-access+ Land use mix-diversity, proximity of destinations + Aesthetics: linear and quadratic terms)

Linear component*

1.276

1.218, 1.336

<.001

Curvilinear smooth*

F(1.78)=34.85

<.001

Interaction effects

Gender by Index (linear component)*

Association in men

1.270

1.033, 1.561

.024

Association in women

1.248

1.181, 1.319

<.001

Gender by Index (curvilinear smooth)*

Association in men

F(3.09)=17.83

<.001

Association in women

F(0.81)=79.63

<.001

Site by Index (linear component)*

Association in Ghent, Belgium

1.179

1.136, 1.223

<.001

Association in Seattle, USA

1.124

1.085, 1.163

<.001

Association in Baltimore, USA

1.080

1.037, 1.125

<.001

Association in Adelaide, Australia

1.054

1.026, 1.083

<.001

Site by Index (curvilinear smooth)*

   

Association in Ghent, Belgium

F(2.50)=35.32

<.001

Association in Seattle, USA

F(1.00)=45.58

<.001

Association in Baltimore, USA

F(1.00)=14.26

<.001

Association in Adelaide, Australia

F(1.00)=14.09

<.001

  1. Note. Gender, age, living arrangements (with vs. without partner), driver’s license holder (yes vs. no), tertiary education (yes vs. no), area household income (in deciles), body mass index, study site, and weekly minutes of other types of physical activity (household, work and leisure) were included as covariates in all models. All regression models used a negative binomial variance function and a logarithmic link function. Only significant interaction effects are presented. Exp(b) antilogarithm of regression coefficient; exp(95% CI) = antilogarithms of the 95% confidence intervals of the regression coefficient; p = probability value; * for significant curvilinear relationships, the significance of both linear component and curvilinear smooth are reported; # = final model including only predictors significant at p<.15; ## = final models including walkability index based on environmental attributes independently positively related to walking. The antilogarithms of the regression coefficients represent the proportional increase (if exp(b) > 1.00) or decrease (if exp(b)<1.00) in average min/wk of transport-related walking associated with a unit increase in a perceived environmental attribute.
Back to article page

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us