. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Prev Med. 2012 Oct;43(4):378–384. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.06.018

Table 2.

Adjusted associations of aesthetic and safety characteristics with BMI

	Each aesthetic and safety variable in a separate model	All aesthetic characteristics in a single model	Both safety hazard indicators in a single model	All aesthetic and safety variables in a single mutually adjusted model
Aesthetic characteristics:
Presence of a sidewalk café	−0.58 (−0.90 to −0.27)^a	−0.34 (−0.59, −0.10) ^a		−0.35 (−0.58, −0.12) ^a
Presence of a landmark building	−0.36 (−0.67, −0.06) ^a	−0.20 (−0.46, 0.07)		−0.20 (−0.46, 0.06)
Street tree density, thousands per km²	−0.39 (−0.60, −0.17) ^a	−0.32 (−0.46, −0.13) ^a		−0.33 (−0.52, −0.14) ^a
Percentage of streets rated acceptably clean	0.35 (0.13, 0.57)^a	0.25 (0.05, 0.45)^a		0.25 (0.04, 0.45)^a
Safety-hazard indicators:
Homicide prevalence (log- transformed)	−0.24 (−0.62, 0.13)		−0.24 (−0.62, 0.14)	−0.06 (−0.37, 0.25)
Pedestrian–auto fatality prevalence (log-transformed	−0.05 (−0.35, 0.25)		−0.03 (−0.32, 0.27)	0.10 (−0.13, 0.34)

95% CI excludes 0.00

Note: Values shown are regression coefficients and 95% CIs adjusted for individual race/ethnicity, gender, age, education as well as percentage poverty, percentage black, percentage Latino, and walkability of the 1-kilometer buffer; continuous variables have been rescaled so that 1 unit is equal to the interquartile range and regression coefficients can be interpreted as the difference in BMI for a contrast between neighborhoods at the 75^th and 25^th percentiles of the characteristic.