From: Does walkable neighbourhood design influence the association between objective crime and walking?
Spatial variable | Mean (SD) | Relative change (CI)1 | p |
---|---|---|---|
Individual models | Â | Â | Â |
Burglary (400Â m) | 5.72 (6.47) | 1.086 (1.030-1.145) | 0.002 |
Burglary (1600Â m) | 93.54 (80.60) | 1.007 (1.003-1.011) | 0.002 |
Personal crime in public space (400Â m) | 1.46 (5.75) | 1.077 (1.013-1.145) | 0.017 |
Personal crime in public space (1600Â m) | 32.43 (68.46) | 1.010 (1.004-1.016) | 0.001 |
Residential density (400Â m)2 | 11.86 (27.65) | 0.999 (1.000-1.001) | 0.375 |
Residential density (1600Â m)2 | 12.73 (8.27) | 1.004 (1.000-1.009) | 0.066 |
Street connectivity (400Â m)3 | 61.96 (30.27) | 1.000 (1.000-1.001) | 0.454 |
Street connectivity (1600Â m)3 | 56.85 (18.90) | 1.002 (1.000-1.003) | 0.078 |
Local destinations (400Â m)4 | 3.94 (10.58) | 1.004 (1.001-1.007) | 0.015 |
Local destinations (1600Â m)4 | 80.06 (104.52) | 1.001 (1.000-1.001) | 0.000 |
Hotels, pubs, clubs & restaurants (400Â m)5 | 0.23 (0.88) | 1.057 (1.016-1.100) | 0.006 |
Hotels, pubs, clubs & restaurants (1600Â m)5 | 1.55 (8.56) | 1.008 (1.004-1.012) | 0.000 |