Table 3.
Within and between city differences in dog walkers and non-dog walkers perceptions of safety
| San Diego (n = 276) β (95 % CI)1 | Portland (n = 233) β (95 % CI)1 | Nashville (n = 296) β (95 % CI)1 | Perth (n = 308) β (95 % CI)1 | Significant between city comparisons (Dog walkers only)2 p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feel safe in neighborhood3 | −0.13 (−0.61,0.36) | −0.01 (−0.54,0.53) | 0.27 (−0.22,0.76) | 0.00 (−0.43,0.47) | 0.000 PE < SD, PL, NV |
| Neighborhood problems4 | 0.98 (−0.61,2.56) | 2.20 (0.38,4.02)* | 0.51 (−1.07,2.09) | −0.29 (−1.62,1.04) | 0.08 PE > NV* |
| Neighborhood natural surveillance3 | 0.21 (−0.16,0.57) | −0.88 (−0.45,0.28) | 0.44 (0.08,0.79)* | 0.29 (−0.04,0.62) | 0.000 PE < PL, NV |
| Feel safe if have neighborhood natural surveillance3 | 0.07 (−0.29,0.43) | 0.10 (−0.28,0.48) | 0.20 (−0.17,0.57) | 0.11 (−0.21,0.43) | 0.000 PE < SD, PL, NV |
*p ≤ 0.05; SD San Diego, PL Portland, NV Nashville, PE Perth
1All models adjusted for age group, sex, highest education level, ethnicity (US); country of birth (Aust), number of children in household, housing type, time livedin neighborhood; Reference group = Non-dog walker
2Reference group = Perth
3Measured on a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree
4Count of neighborhood problems (range 0–12)