Table 4.
Part-worth utilities of the environmental attribute levels in the total sample and the four subgroups
| Environmental factors | Total sample (n = 1131) | Subgroup 1 (n = 624) | Subgroup 2 (n = 350) | Subgroup 3 (n = 83) | Subgroup 4 (n = 74) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-worth utility (95 % CI) | Part-worth utility (95 % CI) | Part-worth utility (95 % CI) | Part-worth utility (95 % CI) | Part-worth utility (95 % CI) | |
| Sidewalk evenness | |||||
| Very uneven | -267.2 (-273.2, -261.1) | -332.5 (-334, -331) | -228.4 (-231.9, -224.8) | -40.1 (-44.2, -36.1) | -29.9 (-39.2, -20.6) |
| Slightly uneven | 36.9 (35.6, 38.1) | 16.7 (15.9, 17.6) | 58.2 (54.9, 61.6) | 23.7 (16.7, 30.6)a | 10.1 (0.3, 19.8)a |
| Even | 230.3 (224.5, 236.2) | 315.8 (314.1, 317.5) | 170.1 (167.7, 172.5) | 16.5 (9.8, 23.1)a | 19.8 (11.6, 28)a |
| Separation from traffic | |||||
| No separation | -11.9 (-13.3, -10.4) | -12.1 (-12.7, -11.5) | -11.4 (-15.1, -7.7) | 4.5 (-0.7, 9.7)a | -17.3 (-27.5, -7.1)a |
| Cycling path in other color (red) | 0.6 (-0.6, 1.8) | 1 (0.4, 1.6) | -1.6 (-4.8, 1.6) | 6.1 (2.3, 9.9)a | -19.7 (-30, -9.3)a |
| Small shrub between sidewalk and cycling path | 11.3 (9.2, 13.3) | 11.1 (10.2, 12) | 13 (8.4, 17.6) | -10.6 (-15.7, -5.5) | 37 (22.9, 51.1) |
| Presence of obstacle | |||||
| Electrical box and bicycle on sidewalk | -12.4 (-13.1, -11.7) | -15.7 (-16.2, -15.2) | -11 (-12.9, -9.2) | -14.9 (-20.3, -9.6) | -1.2 (-8, 5.7)a |
| No obstacle present | 12.4 (11.7, 13.1) | 15.7 (15.2, 16.2) | 11 (9.2, 12.9) | 14.9 (9.6, 20.3) | 1.2 (-5.7, 8)a |
| Traffic volume | |||||
| 4 cars + 1 truck | -38.5 (-41.4, -35.6) | -11.6 (-12.6, -10.6) | -58.9 (-62.8, -55) | -168.4 (-187.1, -149.8) | -16.1 (-23.7, -8.4) |
| 3 cars | 7.7 (6.6, 8.9) | 1.2 (0.4, 1.9) | 16.8 (14.2, 19.4) | 30.4 (20.7, 40.1) | 4.4 (-3.3, 12.1)a |
| 1 car | 30.8 (28.3, 33.2) | 10.4 (9.6, 11.2) | 42.1 (38.2, 46) | 138 (126.6, 149.5) | 11.6 (3.6, 19.7)a |
| Speed limit | |||||
| 50 km/h | -18.5 (-20.4, -16.5) | -14.6 (-15.3, -14) | -19 (-22.1, -15.8) | -78.8 (-93.1, -64.6) | 18.1 (3.2, 33) |
| 30 km/h | 18.5 (16.5, 20.4) | 14.6 (14, 15.3) | 19 (15.8, 22.1) | 78.8 (64.6, 93.1) | -18.1 (-33, -3.2) |
| Traffic calming device | |||||
| No speed bump | -4.4 (-5.3, -3.4) | -3.1 (-3.7, -2.5) | -1.8 (-3.7, 0.2)a | -26.8 (-35.1, -18.6) | -5.8 (-15.6, 4)a |
| Speed bump present | 4.4 (3.4, 5.3) | 3.1 (2.5, 3.7) | 1.8 (-0.2, 3.7)a | 26.8 (18.6, 35.1) | 5.8 (-4, 15.6)a |
| Overall upkeep | |||||
| Bad upkeep (a lot of litter and graffiti) | -25.7 (-27.2, -24.3) | -32.2 (-33, -31.4) | -28.3 (-31.7, -25) | -29.7 (-35.1, -24.3) | 19.9 (9.5, 30.4) |
| Moderate upkeep (a bit of litter and graffiti) | -3 (-3.9, -2) | -4.6 (-5.3, -3.9) | -0.4 (-2.4, 1.6) | 7.6 (1.6, 13.6) | -15.2 (-22.4, -8)a |
| Good upkeep (no litter and graffiti) | 28.7 (27.1, 30.3) | 36.8 (35.8, 37.9) | 28.7 (25.3, 32.2) | 22.1 (16.9, 27.3) | -4.7 (-15.9, 6.4)a |
| Vegetation | |||||
| No tree | -11.1 (-12.7, -9.4) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.1) | -18.9 (-22.5, -15.3) | -39.5 (-45.5, -33.5) | -69.2 (-83.2, -55.2) |
| Two trees | -5.6 (-6.5, -4.7) | -4.3 (-5.1, -3.4) | -8.3 (-10.5, -6.2) | 9.6 (3.6, 15.6) | 3.7 (-6.8, 14.3) |
| Five trees | 16.7 (15, 18.4) | 2.8 (1.9, 3.7) | 27.2 (23.8, 30.6) | 29.9 (25.1, 34.7) | 65.4 (46.6, 84.3) |
| Presence of bench | |||||
| No bench | -15.5 (-17, -14) | -14.7 (-15.4, -13.9) | -11.4 (-13.7, -9) | -6.1 (-9.2, -3) | -68.2 (-83.8, -52.6) |
| Bench present | 15.5 (14, 17) | 14.7 (13.9, 15.4) | 11.4 (9, 13.7) | 6.1 (3, 9.2) | 68.2 (52.6, 83.8) |
| RLH | 0.92 | 0.98 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.86 |
| Agreement model prediction - fixed task 1 (%)b | 82.2 | 93.8 | 58.3 | 79.5 | 75.7 |
| Agreement model prediction - fixed task 2 (%)b | 97.5 | 100.0 | 99.1 | 91.6 | 78.4 |
Part-worth utilities should be compared within one environmental factor and one subgroup (not across factors and subgroups)
aWithin one environmental factor and one subgroup, levels with an “ a ” do not differ significantly
bThis represents for how many participants the choice predicted by the model corresponds to the actual choice of the participants
CI confidence interval, RLH root likelihood