Table 3.
Regression results: association between land cover type density and directly age/sex standardised bad/very bad health prevalence (%)
Land Cover Map 2007 Aggregate Class | Model 1: Single land cover types, unadjusted | Model 2: Single land cover types, adjusted for IoD and urbanity | Model 3: Mutually adjusted for all land covers, with IoD and urbanity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LSOA % land cover | B | 95% CI | p | B | 95% CI | p | B | 95% CI | p |
Broadleaf woodland | -0.082 | -0.086,-0.078 | <0.001 | -0.010 | -0.012,-0.008 | <0.001 | -0.009 | -0.011,-0.007 | <0.001 |
Coniferous woodland | -0.100 | -0.113,-0.088 | <0.001 | -0.003 | -0.008,0.002 | 0.289 | 0.003 | -0.002,0.008 | 0.283 |
Arable and horticulture | -0.033 | -0.035,-0.032 | <0.001 | -0.001 | -0.001,0.000 | 0.098 | -0.001 | -0.002,-0.000 | 0.001 |
Improved grassland | -0.044 | -0.046,-0.042 | <0.001 | -0.006 | -0.007,-0.006 | <0.001 | -0.006 | -0.007,-0.005 | <0.001 |
Semi-natural grassland | -0.087 | -0.093,-0.081 | <0.001 | -0.004 | -0.007,-0.002 | 0.001 | 0.001 | -0.001,0.004 | 0.328 |
Mountain, heath, bog | -0.055 | -0.063,-0.046 | <0.001 | -0.002 | -0.005,0.002 | 0.341 | -0.002 | -0.006,0.002 | 0.329 |
Saltwater | 0.221 | 0.162,0.280 | <0.001 | -0.011 | -0.034,0.013 | 0.361 | -0.010 | -0.033,0.014 | 0.418 |
Freshwater | -0.036 | -0.049,-0.022 | <0.001 | 0.000 | -0.005,0.006 | 0.914 | 0.003 | -0.003,0.008 | 0.322 |
Coastal | -0.010 | -0.021,0.002 | 0.106 | -0.009 | -0.014,-0.005 | <0.001 | -0.011 | -0.016,-0.006 | <0.001 |
Urban/suburban | 0.029 | 0.028,0.030 | <0.001 | 0.004 | 0.003,0.004 | <0.001 | a |
IoD: Indices of Deprivation. B = change in directly age/sex standardised prevalence (%) of good/very good health associated with one percentage point increase in LSOA land cover density. Bold coefficient - association in hypothesised direction, p < 0.05. Italicised coefficient - association in opposite direction to that hypothesised, p < 0.05.
aUrban/suburban excluded from fully adjusted model.