Table 3.

Estimated associations between perceived environmental attributes and walking and cycling for transport assessed in the previous week by IPAQ–LF^a.

Environmental attributes	≥ 150 min walking for transport (n = 13,745)		Total minutes walking for transport in those who reported any walking (n = 4,939)		Any cycling for transport (n = 13,745)		Total minutes cycling for transport in those who reported any cycling (n = 851)
	OR (95% CI)	p‑Value	exp(β) (95% CI)	p‑Value	OR (95% CI)	p‑Value	exp(β) (95% CI)	p‑Value
Residential density	NAb		1.001 (1.000, 1.001)	< 0.001	NAb		1.00 (0.999, 1.001)	0.805
Land use mix–access	1.33 (1.24, 1.42)	< 0.001	1.08 (1.03, 1.14)	0.001	1.24 (1.13, 1.36)	< 0.001c	1.05 (0.95, 1.15)	0.359
Street connectivity	1.15 (1.09, 1.21)	< 0.001c	1.06 (1.02, 1.11)	0.003	1.14 (1.06, 1.22)	0.001	1.00 (0.92, 1.08)	0.945
Pedestrian infrastructure	1.12 (1.04, 1.21)	0.002	1.04 (0.98, 1.10)	0.193	1.22 (1.10, 1.36)	< 0.001c	0.94 (0.84, 1.05)	0.267
Aesthetics	1.19 (1.11, 1.27)	< 0.001	1.05 (1.00, 1.11)	0.032	1.15 (1.05, 1.26)	0.003	1.01 (0.92, 1.11)	0.814
Traffic safety	0.92 (0.86, 0.97)	0.005	0.93 (0.89, 0.98)	0.002	1.14 (1.05, 1.24)	0.001	0.91 (0.83, 0.99)	0.033
Crime safety	0.99 (0.93, 1.05)	0.667	0.94 (0.90, 0.99)	0.010	1.17 (1.07, 1.28)	0.001	0.87 (0.80, 0.95)	0.002
Distance to local destinations	1.19 (1.12, 1.27)	< 0.001c	1.05 (1.00, 1.10)	0.052	1.16 (1.06, 1.27)	0.001	1.07 (0.99, 1.17)	0.108
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio. aAll models adjusted for participant sociodemographics, site, and study design variables (neighborhood–area unit and socioeconomic status). bAssociation significant but not linear. Shape of relationship presented in Figure 1. cSignificant interaction by city, see Figure 2.