Table 3.
Negative Binomial Models Showing the Moderation Effect Between Poverty and Playground Typesa
| Model predicting visitors, n | Model predicting MVPA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contextual variables | Estimate | SE | Difference associated with factor, % |
Estimate | SE | Difference associated with factor, % |
| Innovativeb | −0.04 | 0.20 | −3.92% | 0.01 | 0.21 | 1.01% |
| Traditional | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Not a “destination” location | −0.71 **** | 0.14 | −50.84% | 0.72 **** | 0.14 | −51.32% |
| Destination location | – | – | – | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00% |
| Population in ½ mile radius (10,000) | 0.49 **** | 0.08 | 63.23% | 0.40 **** | 0.08 | 49.18% |
| Playground size (1,000 sq ft) | 0.01 **** | 0.00 | 1.01% | 0.01 **** | 0.00 | 1.01% |
| % families in poverty | −0.07 **** | 0.01 | −6.76% | 0.06 **** | 0.01 | −5.82% |
| Interaction of innovative parks and poverty | 0.04 ** | 0.01 | 4.08% | 0.04 ** | 0.01 | 4.08% |
| Interaction of traditional parks and poverty | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Weekend days | 0.01 | 0.22 | 1.01% | 0.03 | 0.26 | 3.05% |
| Weekdays | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Number of unique play elements | 0.06 | 0.03 | 6.18% | 0.05 | 0.03 | 5.13% |
| Number of surface types | 0.04 | 0.04 | 4.08% | 0.05 | 0.04 | 5.13% |
Notes: Boldface indicates statistical significance (*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p0.001; ****p<0.0001).
a
For simplicity, the parameter estimates of intercept, city, and time of day are not reported in the results.
b
Refers to innovative playgrounds where % families in poverty is zero.
MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity.