. 2018 Feb 9;15(2):301. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15020301

Table 3.

Association between neighbourhood environment factors and BMI using binary logistic regression when sociodemographic and SES factors were adjusted *.

Neighbourhood Environment Variables	The Response Options	Responses of Non-Obese Participants BMI < 25.00 N (%)	Responses of Obese Participants BMI ≥ 25.00 N (%)	Total Participants N (%)	Sig.	Exp (B)	95% CI for Exp (B)
Neighbourhood Environment Variables	The Response Options	Responses of Non-Obese Participants BMI < 25.00 N (%)	Responses of Obese Participants BMI ≥ 25.00 N (%)	Total Participants N (%)	Sig.	Exp (B)	Lower	Upper
1. Residential density.	Low	46 (47)	47 (15.5)	93 (23.2)	0.006	3.33	1.41	7.87
1. Residential density.	High	52 (53)	256 (84.5)	308 (76.8)	0.006	3.33	1.41	7.87
2. Access to commercial places.	Agree	20 (20.4)	102 (33.7)	122 (30.4)	0.269	0.55	0.19	1.60
2. Access to commercial places.	Disagree	78 (79.6)	201 (66.3)	279 (69.6)	0.269	0.55	0.19	1.60
3. Access to public transport.	Agree	17 (17.3)	112 (37)	129 (32.2)	0.040	0.38	0.15	0.96
3. Access to public transport.	Disagree	81 (82.7)	191 (63)	272 (67.8)	0.040	0.38	0.15	0.96
4. Presence of pavements.	Agree	35 (35.7)	86 (28.4)	121 (30.2)	0.599	1.37	0.42	4.45
4. Presence of pavements.	Disagree	63 (64.3)	217 (71.6)	280 (69.8)	0.599	1.37	0.42	4.45
5. Presence of cycle lanes.	Agree	40 (40.8)	198 (65.3)	238 (59.4)	0.118	0.40	0.13	1.26
5. Presence of cycle lanes.	Disagree	58 (59.2)	105 (34.7)	163 (40.6)	0.118	0.40	0.13	1.26
6. Access to recreational facilities.	Agree	20 (20.4)	92 (30.4)	112 (27.9)	0.453	0.69	0.26	1.81
6. Access to recreational facilities.	Disagree	78 (79.6)	211 (69.6)	289 (72.1)	0.453	0.69	0.26	1.81
7. Crime/safety at night.	Agree	50 (51)	48 (15.8)	98 (24.4)	0.004	3.90	1.56	9.78
7. Crime/safety at night.	Disagree	48 (49)	255 (84.2)	303 (75.6)	0.004	3.90	1.56	9.78
8. Traffic safety.	Agree	52 (53)	96 (31.7)	148 (36.9)	0.211	1.71	0.74	3.93
8. Traffic safety.	Disagree	46 (47)	207 (68.3)	253 (63.1)	0.211	1.71	0.74	3.93
9. See people as being active.	Agree	40 (40.8)	92 (30.4)	132 (32.9)	0.894	0.95	0.42	2.15
9. See people as being active.	Disagree	58 (59.2)	211 (69.6)	269 (67.1)	0.894	0.95	0.42	2.15
10. Presence of beautiful things ‘Aesthetics’.	Agree	8 (7)	123 (41)	131 (32.7)	0.000	0.08	0.02	0.28
10. Presence of beautiful things ‘Aesthetics’.	Disagree	91 (93)	179 (59)	270 (67.3)	0.000	0.08	0.02	0.28
11. Household vehicle ownership.	Agree	40 (40.8)	78 (25.7)	118 (29.4)	0.869	0.93	0.40	2.19
11. Household vehicle ownership.	Disagree	58 (59.2)	225 (74.3)	283 (70.6)	0.869	0.93	0.40	2.19
12. Connectivity of streets.	Agree	55 (56)	82 (27)	137 (34.2)	0.000	5.13	2.25	11.70
12. Connectivity of streets.	Disagree	43 (44)	221 (73)	264 (65.8)	0.000	5.13	2.25	11.70
13. Maintenance of pavements.	Agree	31 (31.6)	88 (29)	119 (29.7)	0.576	1.43	0.41	4.98
13. Maintenance of pavements.	Disagree	67 (68.4)	215 (71)	282 (70.3)	0.576	1.43	0.41	4.98
14. Maintenance of cycle lanes.	Agree	36 (36.7)	169 (55.7)	205 (51.1)	0.742	0.82	0.25	2.66
14. Maintenance of cycle lanes.	Disagree	62 (63.3)	134 (44.3)	196 (48.9)	0.742	0.82	0.25	2.66
15. Traffic safety for cyclists.	Agree	51 (52)	87 (28.7)	138 (34.4)	0.658	0.82	0.34	1.98
15. Traffic safety for cyclists.	Disagree	47 (48)	216 (71.3)	263 (65.6)	0.658	0.82	0.34	1.98
16. Crime/safety during the day.	Agree	55 (56.1)	59 (19.5)	114 (28.4)	0.004	3.88	1.52	9.89
16. Crime/safety during the day.	Disagree	43 (43.9)	244 (80.5)	287 (71.6)	0.004	3.88	1.52	9.89
17. Public places and walkable destinations.	Agree	23 (23.5)	119 (39.3)	142 (35.4)	0.856	0.91	0.32	2.61
17. Public places and walkable destinations.	Disagree	75 (76.5)	184 (60.7)	259 (64.6)	0.856	0.91	0.32	2.61

OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. The OR was calculated for all variables with 95% confidence intervals. * Adjusted for, gender, age, marital status, level of education, occupation and income.