Table 3.

Associations between frequency of walking for recreation per week and perceived and objective measures of the neighborhood environment.

	Model 1ab	Model 2ac	Model 3ad
	Relative change (95% CI)	Relative change (95% CI)	Relative change (95% CI)
Objectively measured
Connectivity z-score	1.01 (0.99, 1.04)		0.98 (0.95, 1.01)
Residential density z-score	1.00 (0.96, 1.04)		1.02 (0.98, 1.06)
Presence of a pocket/small park within $400\mathrm{m}$e	1.00 (0.93, 1.07)		0.97 (0.91, 1.04)
Presence of a medium/large park within $400\mathrm{m}$f	1.10 (1.03, 1.18)		1.03 (0.96, 1.11)
Presence of a district/regional park within $\mathrm{1,600}\mathrm{m}$g	0.92 (0.86, 0.99)		0.96 (0.90, 1.04)
Presence of a beach access point within $\mathrm{1,600}\mathrm{m}$	1.11 (1.00, 1.24)		0.95 (0.84, 1.09)
Perceived measures
Street connectivityh		1.12 (1.06, 1.19)	1.12 (1.06, 1.19)
Infrastructure and safety for walkingh		1.02 (0.96, 1.09)	1.03 (0.96, 1.10)
Traffic safetyh		1.03 (0.98, 1.08)	1.03 (0.98, 1.09)
Neighborhood aestheticsh		1.20 (1.14, 1.27)	1.20 (1.14, 1.26)
Crime safetyh		1.08 (1.02, 1.14)	1.08 (1.02, 1.14)
Presence of a park within 5-min walk		1.12 (1.05, 1.20)	1.12 (1.05, 1.20)
Presence of a sports field within 15-min walk		1.04 (0.97, 1.11)	1.04 (0.97, 1.11)
Presence of a beach within 15-min walk		1.10 (1.00, 1.21)	1.14 (1.01, 1.28)
Objective neighborhood environment indexi	1.01 (0.98, 1.03)		0.98 (0.95, 1.01)
Perceived neighborhood environment indexj		1.12 (1.10, 1.14)	1.12 (1.10, 1.14)

Note: $\mathrm{T}1=\text{baseline}$; $\mathrm{T}2=1-\text{yr}\text{follow}-\text{up}$; $\mathrm{T}3=3-\text{yr}\text{follow}-\text{up}$; $\mathrm{T}4=8-\text{yr}\text{follow}-\text{up}$.

^aAll models adjusted for baseline age, gender, marital status, level of education, occupation, hours of work/week, minutes/day of work travel, level of physical activity at work, children at home, and dog ownership.

^bModel 1: Objective measures of the neighborhood environment only.

^cModel 2: Perceived measures of the neighborhood environment only.

^dModel 3: Objective and perceived measures of the neighborhood environment.

^e$\text{Pocket}/\text{small}\text{park}=\le 0.5\mathrm{ha}$.

^f$\text{Medium}/\text{large}\text{park}=\le 5\mathrm{ha}$.

^g$\text{District}/\text{regional}\text{park}=\le 15\mathrm{ha}$.

^hNEWS 5-point scale: Strongly disagree to Strongly agree.

ⁱPresence or absence ($\text{yes}=1$, $\text{no}=0$) of pocket/small park, medium/large park, district/regional park, beach access, and street connectivity and residential density (z-scores above baseline median $\text{score}=1$, z-scores below baseline median $\text{score}=0$); range: 0–6.

^jPerceived presence ($\text{yes}=1$, $\text{no}=0$) of park, sports field, or beach, and perceived street connectivity, infrastructure, and safety for walking, neighborhood esthetics, traffic safety, and crime safety (z-scores above baseline median $\text{score}=1$, z-scores below baseline median $\text{score}=0$); range: 0–8.