Skip to main content

Table 2 Overall and site-specific perceived environmental scores [mean (SD)], all scores are in the positive direction, higher scores meaning more agreement with the attribute

From: International study of perceived neighbourhood environmental attributes and Body Mass Index: IPEN Adult study in 12 countries

  All SITES AUS BEL BRA COL CZ DEN HK MEX NZ ESP UK USA
Site A Site B   Studies 1 and 2   Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H
Overall Na 14222 2650 1166 697 963 330 167 642 970 677 511 512 496 495 904 843 1287 912
Residential density 88 (133) 36 (41) 84 (73) 100 (123) 77 (82) 91 (70) 92 (70) 86 (65) 414 (240) 38 (41) 29 (47) 18 (26) 49 (68) 22 (25) 200 (104) 40 (41) 39 (57) 60 (79)
Land use mix – diversity (9 destination types) 3.9 (0.7) 3.8 (0.7) 3.6 (0.9) 4.1 (0.5) 4.3 (0.5) 3.9 (0.6) 3.9 (0.7) 4.2 (0.6) 4.0 (0.8) 3.7 (0.6) 3.8 (0.7) 3.6 (0.7) 4.1 (0.6) 3.9 (0.6) 4.6 (0.4) 3.6 (0.7) 3.8 (0.8) 3.6 (0.9)
Land use mix - access 3.4 (0.7) 3.5 (0.7) 3.3 (0.6) 3.7 (0.5) 3.4 (0.5) 3.4 (0.7) 3.4 (0.7) 3.6 (0.6) 3.3 (0.8) 3.3 (0.5) 3.2 (0.6) 3.1 (0.5) 3.4 (0.5) 3.3 (0.5) 3.7 (0.5) 3.3 (0.8) 3.2 (0.8) 3.0 (0.8)
Connectivity 3.0 (0.7) 2.8 (0.9) 2.7 (0.7) 3.3 (0.7) 3.2 (0.5) 3.0 (0.7) 2.9 (0.6) 3.0 (0.6) 3.0 (0.8) 2.9 (0.5) 2.7 (0.5) 2.7 (0.4) 2.8 (0.5) 3.0 (0.5) 3.2 (0.7) 3.1 (0.7) 3.0 (0.8) 3.0 (0.8)
Infrastructure and safety 3.0 (0.6) 3.0 (0.6) 2.8 (0.5) 2.8 (0.8) 2.8 (0.5) 3.1 (0.5) 3.2 (0.5) 3.1 (0.5) 3.3 (0.6) 2.6 (0.4) 2.8 (0.3) 2.8 (0.4) 2.9 (0.4) 2.9 (0.4) 3.3 (0.5) 3.1 (0.5) 3.0 (0.6) 3.1 (0.6)
Aesthetics 2.8 (0.7) 2.9 (0.7) 2.5 (0.6) 2.8 (0.8) 2.5 (0.6) 2.4 (0.6) 2.5 (0.6) 2.7 (0.6) 2.7 (0.7) 2.6 (0.5) 2.8 (0.5) 2.8 (0.5) 2.8 (0.5) 2.8 (0.6) 2.8 (0.7) 2.2 (0.8) 3.1 (0.7) 3.1 (0.6)
Safety from traffic 2.6 (0.7) 2.8 (0.8) 2.4 (0.6) 2.4 (0.8) 2.5 (0.5) 2.9 (0.6) 3.1 (0.5) 2.8 (0.5) 2.7 (0.7) 2.4 (0.5) 2.6 (0.5) 2.6 (0.5) 2.8 (0.4) 2.7 (0.5) 2.4 (0.7) 2.5 (0.7) 2.7 (0.7) 2.7 (0.7)
Safety from crime 3.0 (0.8) 3.0 (0.8) 3.1 (0.6) 2.3 (0.5) 2.1 (0.7) 3.2 (0.6) 3.4 (0.6) 3.3 (0.6) 2.8 (1.1) 2.2 (0.5) 3.0 (0.5) 2.9 (0.4) 3.1 (0.4) 2.9 (0.6) 3.5 (0.6) 2.9 (0.8) 3.4 (0.6) 3.4 (0.7)
Few cul-de-sacs 2.8 (1.0) 2.8 (1.1) 3.0 (0.8) 3.0 (1.1) 2.9 (0.8) 2.9 (0.9) 2.9 (0.9) 2.7 (0.9) 2.9 (1.2) 2.6 (0.8) 2.3 (0.7) 2.3 (0.6) 2.5 (0.7) 2.6 (0.8) 3.5 (0.9) 2.4 (1.0) 2.8 (1.1) 2.8 (1.2)
No major barriers 3.3 (0.9) 3.7 (0.7) 3.3 (0.7) 3.1 (1.0) 3.0 (0.7) 3.4 (0.8) 3.5 (0.8) 3.7 (0.6) 2.7 (1.2) 2.8 (0.7) 3.3 (0.6) 3.2 (0.6) 3.3 (0.5) 3.5 (0.6) 3.6 (0.8) 3.3 (0.8) 3.2 (1.0) 3.7 (0.6)
  1. Notes: aN for some variables is reduced due to missing data, SD: standard deviation. Site A: Olomouc, B: Hradec Kralove, C: North Shore, D: Waitakere, E: Wellington, F: Christchurch, G: Seattle, H: Baltimore
  2. Missing data: residential density (2.4 %), land use mix diversity (0.7 %), land use mix access (0.7 %), connectivity (0.7 %), infrastructure and safety (0.5 %), aesthetics (0.6 %), safety from traffic (0.7 %), safety from crime (0.7 %), cul-de-sacs (0.9 %), no major barriers (0.8 %)
Back to article page

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us

\