Skip to main content

Table 4 Part-worth utilities of the environmental attribute levels in the total sample and the four subgroups

From: Street characteristics preferred for transportation walking among older adults: a choice-based conjoint analysis with manipulated photographs

Environmental factors Total sample (n = 1131) Subgroup 1 (n = 624) Subgroup 2 (n = 350) Subgroup 3 (n = 83) Subgroup 4 (n = 74)
  Part-worth utility (95 % CI) Part-worth utility (95 % CI) Part-worth utility (95 % CI) Part-worth utility (95 % CI) Part-worth utility (95 % CI)
Sidewalk evenness      
 Very uneven -267.2 (-273.2, -261.1) -332.5 (-334, -331) -228.4 (-231.9, -224.8) -40.1 (-44.2, -36.1) -29.9 (-39.2, -20.6)
 Slightly uneven 36.9 (35.6, 38.1) 16.7 (15.9, 17.6) 58.2 (54.9, 61.6) 23.7 (16.7, 30.6)a 10.1 (0.3, 19.8)a
 Even 230.3 (224.5, 236.2) 315.8 (314.1, 317.5) 170.1 (167.7, 172.5) 16.5 (9.8, 23.1)a 19.8 (11.6, 28)a
Separation from traffic      
 No separation -11.9 (-13.3, -10.4) -12.1 (-12.7, -11.5) -11.4 (-15.1, -7.7) 4.5 (-0.7, 9.7)a -17.3 (-27.5, -7.1)a
 Cycling path in other color (red) 0.6 (-0.6, 1.8) 1 (0.4, 1.6) -1.6 (-4.8, 1.6) 6.1 (2.3, 9.9)a -19.7 (-30, -9.3)a
 Small shrub between sidewalk and cycling path 11.3 (9.2, 13.3) 11.1 (10.2, 12) 13 (8.4, 17.6) -10.6 (-15.7, -5.5) 37 (22.9, 51.1)
Presence of obstacle      
 Electrical box and bicycle on sidewalk -12.4 (-13.1, -11.7) -15.7 (-16.2, -15.2) -11 (-12.9, -9.2) -14.9 (-20.3, -9.6) -1.2 (-8, 5.7)a
 No obstacle present 12.4 (11.7, 13.1) 15.7 (15.2, 16.2) 11 (9.2, 12.9) 14.9 (9.6, 20.3) 1.2 (-5.7, 8)a
Traffic volume      
 4 cars + 1 truck -38.5 (-41.4, -35.6) -11.6 (-12.6, -10.6) -58.9 (-62.8, -55) -168.4 (-187.1, -149.8) -16.1 (-23.7, -8.4)
 3 cars 7.7 (6.6, 8.9) 1.2 (0.4, 1.9) 16.8 (14.2, 19.4) 30.4 (20.7, 40.1) 4.4 (-3.3, 12.1)a
 1 car 30.8 (28.3, 33.2) 10.4 (9.6, 11.2) 42.1 (38.2, 46) 138 (126.6, 149.5) 11.6 (3.6, 19.7)a
Speed limit      
 50 km/h -18.5 (-20.4, -16.5) -14.6 (-15.3, -14) -19 (-22.1, -15.8) -78.8 (-93.1, -64.6) 18.1 (3.2, 33)
 30 km/h 18.5 (16.5, 20.4) 14.6 (14, 15.3) 19 (15.8, 22.1) 78.8 (64.6, 93.1) -18.1 (-33, -3.2)
Traffic calming device      
 No speed bump -4.4 (-5.3, -3.4) -3.1 (-3.7, -2.5) -1.8 (-3.7, 0.2)a -26.8 (-35.1, -18.6) -5.8 (-15.6, 4)a
 Speed bump present 4.4 (3.4, 5.3) 3.1 (2.5, 3.7) 1.8 (-0.2, 3.7)a 26.8 (18.6, 35.1) 5.8 (-4, 15.6)a
Overall upkeep      
 Bad upkeep (a lot of litter and graffiti) -25.7 (-27.2, -24.3) -32.2 (-33, -31.4) -28.3 (-31.7, -25) -29.7 (-35.1, -24.3) 19.9 (9.5, 30.4)
 Moderate upkeep (a bit of litter and graffiti) -3 (-3.9, -2) -4.6 (-5.3, -3.9) -0.4 (-2.4, 1.6) 7.6 (1.6, 13.6) -15.2 (-22.4, -8)a
 Good upkeep (no litter and graffiti) 28.7 (27.1, 30.3) 36.8 (35.8, 37.9) 28.7 (25.3, 32.2) 22.1 (16.9, 27.3) -4.7 (-15.9, 6.4)a
Vegetation      
 No tree -11.1 (-12.7, -9.4) 1.4 (0.8, 2.1) -18.9 (-22.5, -15.3) -39.5 (-45.5, -33.5) -69.2 (-83.2, -55.2)
 Two trees -5.6 (-6.5, -4.7) -4.3 (-5.1, -3.4) -8.3 (-10.5, -6.2) 9.6 (3.6, 15.6) 3.7 (-6.8, 14.3)
 Five trees 16.7 (15, 18.4) 2.8 (1.9, 3.7) 27.2 (23.8, 30.6) 29.9 (25.1, 34.7) 65.4 (46.6, 84.3)
Presence of bench      
 No bench -15.5 (-17, -14) -14.7 (-15.4, -13.9) -11.4 (-13.7, -9) -6.1 (-9.2, -3) -68.2 (-83.8, -52.6)
 Bench present 15.5 (14, 17) 14.7 (13.9, 15.4) 11.4 (9, 13.7) 6.1 (3, 9.2) 68.2 (52.6, 83.8)
RLH 0.92 0.98 0.88 0.93 0.86
Agreement model prediction - fixed task 1 (%)b 82.2 93.8 58.3 79.5 75.7
Agreement model prediction - fixed task 2 (%)b 97.5 100.0 99.1 91.6 78.4
  1. Part-worth utilities should be compared within one environmental factor and one subgroup (not across factors and subgroups)
  2. aWithin one environmental factor and one subgroup, levels with an “ a ” do not differ significantly
  3. bThis represents for how many participants the choice predicted by the model corresponds to the actual choice of the participants
  4. CI confidence interval, RLH root likelihood