Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Med. 2014 Sep 6;69:80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.08.027

Table 2.

Adjusted relationship between selected characteristics and “any” versus “no” utilitarian walking among adults in nine small, rural towns, 2010-2011.

Variables Odds Ratio 95% Conf.Interval
Lower Upper
Socio-demographics and Lifestyle Characteristics

 Sex (female, male-ref.) 0.55 0.42 0.71

 Age (continuous) 0.98 0.97 0.99

 Income (9-cat., ordinal) 0.92 0.85 0.98

 Weekly hours of screen time (logged with lower end of 1) 0.90 0.79 1.04

 Weekly hours of recreational walking (7-cat., ordinal) 1.39 1.29 1.50

 Does [item] keep you from walking? Lack of time 1.54 1.18 2.01

Self-Reported Environmental Measures

 By neighborhood, we mean the area within a 20-minute walk from your home. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? There are crosswalks and pedestrian signals to help walkers cross busy streets in my neighborhood. 1.65 1.25 2.18

 Is there [destination] within a 20-miunte walk from your home? a trail, path, or track 1.88 1.44 2.46

a park or natural recreation area 1.87 1.42 2.47
Objective Environmental Measures

 Generalized Land Use Presence of manufacturing land use within buffer 1.43 1.02 2.00

Presence of resource production and extraction land use within buffer 0.65 0.48 0.87

 Destination Shortest distance to the closest school (meters) 0 – 500
(Reference Group)
500 – 1,000
0.66 0.47 0.93
1,001 – 2,000
0.61 0.43 0.86
2,000+ 0.48 0.32 0.73

 Transportation Presence of intercity transit stops within buffer 2.40 1.23 4.69