Table 3.
Logistic regression models showing odds of active commuting for males and females (model 1, individual and psychological factors; model 2, individual factors and distance; model 3, individual and environmental factors)
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological predictors | Distance | Environmental predictors | ||||
| Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | |
| Individual factors | ||||||
| Age | 0.96 (0.91-1.01)ns | 1.00 (0.96-1.04)ns | 0.91 (0.87-0.96)ns | 0.97 (0.94-0.97)ns | 0.97 (0.93-1.01ns) | 0.99 (0.95-1.03)ns |
| BMI | 0.92 (0.83-1.01)ns | 1.00 (0.95-1.05)ns | 0.83 (0.77-0.91)ns | 0.93 (0.89-0.97)** | 0.86 (0.79-0.93)** | 0.95 (0.91-0.99)* |
| Social class (professional = reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Skilled | 1.33 (0.74-2.3)ns | 1.61 (1.04-2.49)* | 1.24 (0.74-2.08)ns | 1.47 (0.95-2.26)ns | 1.06 (0.65-1.74)ns | 1.54 (1.01-2.35)* |
| Partly skilled/unskilled | 0.59 (0.25-1.41)ns | 1.98 (1.12-3.52)* | 0.42 (0.19-0.92)* | 1.84 (1.05-3.23)* | 0.49 (0.22-1.11)ns | 2.09 (1.22-3.58)** |
|
| ||||||
| Psychological factors | ||||||
| Habit | 6.75(4.46- 10.22)** |
4.65 (3.54-6.12)** | ||||
| PBC | 1.72 (0.99-2.99)ns | 1.25 (0.90-1.74)ns | ||||
| Intention | 0.85 (0.63-1.16)ns | 0.96 (0.74-1.23)ns | ||||
| Instrumental attitude | 0.67 (0.36-1.27)ns | 0.72 (0.44-1.18)ns | ||||
| Affective attitude | 0.94 (0.62-1.41)ns | 0.80 (0.56-1.14)ns | ||||
| Subjective norm | 0.83 (0.58-1.19)ns | 1.18 (0.94-1.49)ns | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Distance | ||||||
| Route length (<1.5km = reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| 1.5km-4km | 0.24 (0.13-0.45)** | 0.19 (0.12-0.28)** | ||||
| 4-10km | 0.03 (0.01-0.06)** | 0.01 (0.01-0.03)** | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Environmental factors | ||||||
| Perceived neighbourhood environment | ||||||
| Terraced housing density | 1.03 (0.70-1.51)ns | 1.38 (1.03-1.86)* | ||||
| Apartment density | 1.25 (0.79-1.98)ns | 1.18 (0.81-1.73)ns | ||||
| Land use mix diversity | 1.28 (0.79-2.05)ns | 1.83 (1.25-2.70)** | ||||
| Access to services | 1.40 (0.90-2.16)ns | 1.17 (0.83-1.65)ns | ||||
| Street connectivity | - | 1.09 (0.78-1.52)ns | ||||
| Walking and cycling facilities | 0.93 (0.62-1.37)ns | 0.84 (0.61-1.14)ns | ||||
| Safety from crime | 1.46 (0.87-2.47)ns | - | ||||
| Objective neighbourhood environment | ||||||
| Urban rural status (urban = reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Town and fringe | 1.00 (0.51-1.98)ns | 1.33 (0.78-2.24)ns | ||||
| Village | 0.89 (0.29-2.70)ns | 1.26 (0.60-2.67)ns | ||||
| Road density | 1.06 (0.94-1.19)ns | 1.10 (1.00-1.21)* | ||||
| Density of employment locations | ||||||
| (low = reference) | 1.07 (0.60-1.94)ns | 1.52 (0.95-2.45)ns | ||||
| Land use mix score (low = reference) | 1.15 (0.68-1.98)ns | 1.18 (0.77-1.80)ns | ||||
| Deprivation score | 1.00 (0.97-1.04)ns | 0.98 (0.95-1.01)ns | ||||
| Park in the neighbourhood | 1.36 (0.88-2.44)ns | 1.35 (0.90-2.03)ns | ||||
| Objective route environment g | ||||||
| Route length ratio | 1.29 (0.83-2.01)ns | 1.46 (1.10-1.94)** | ||||
| Main or secondary road on route (no = reference) |
0.22 (0.13-0.45)** | 0.18 (0.11-0.28)** | ||||
| Density of road traffic accidents | 1.05 (0.98-1.21)ns | - | ||||
| Land use mix score (low = reference) | - | 0.64 (0.42-0.98)* | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Nagelkerke R2 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.30 |
- not included in multivariable analysis
*
p<0.05,
**
p<0.01, ns not significant.
Within each model all factors were included simultaneously and therefore al the factors are adjusted for each other. All analyses adjusted for age, BMI, social class. Non-active commuting is used as the reference category.