Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Environ Psychol. 2009 Dec 1;29(4):485–492. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.08.004

Table 3.

Categorical Differences of Non-Home Activity Space Locations Attributed as Risky or Safe by Substance Use Involvement

Locations Attributed as Safe
Non-Substance Users (N =151) Substance Users (N =150)
Count Percent Count Percent
Home 71 47 Home 73 49
Friend’s Home 34 23 Friend’s Home 41 27
School 22 15 City Places1 13 08
Church 11 07 School 10 06
Park/Nature 4 02 Church 5 03

City Places1 3 01 Park/Nature 5 03
Work 3 01 Other 2 01
Other 2 01 Work 1 006
Recreation Center 1 006 Recreation Center 0 n/a

χ2 (8, N=301) = 15.789, p<.05
Locations Attributed as Risky
Non-Substance Users (N =151) Substance Users (N =150)
Count Percent Count Percent
City Places1 63 42 City Places1 76 51
School 27 18 Friend’s Home 28 19
Park/Nature 17 11 Park/Nature 14 09
Recreation 17 11 School 11 07
Center
Friend’s Home 14 09 Recreation Center 7 04
Other 5 03 Work 7 04
Work 4 02 Other 3 02

χ2 (7, N=301) =15.789, p<.01
1

City Places served as an omnibus variable for this table and subsumed these locations: city streets, subway stops, city parks, nightclubs, retail, restaurants, and movie theaters.