Table 3.

Predicted increases in injury crash risks due to specified outlet density changes

Type of outlet density change:	All injury crashes	HBD injury crashes	SVN injury crashes
(A) 10% rise in all types of outlets:	2.82%	2.49%	0.43%
	(2.30%, 3.34%)	(1.66%, 3.31%)	(−0.43%, 1.27%)
(B) 10% rise in a single outlet category:
-- Bars only	1.40%	4.26%	10.30%
	(0.48%, 3.10%)	(1.36%, 15.56%)	(2.18%, 76.78%)
-- Restaurants only	1.18%	−2.41%	−5.95%
	(−0.15%, 2.54%)	(−7.36%, 1.12%)	(−37.13%, −0.48%)
-- Off-Premise only	0.48%	0.04%	−3.37%
	(−0.36%, 1.26%)	(−4.80%, 1.95%)	(−28.98%, 0.43%)
(C) Covariates’ contributions to “bars only” effects above:
-- Overall density in local block group	0.03%	0.03%	−0.01%
-- Overall density in adjacent block groups	0.11%	0.08%	−0.01%
-- Overall density at city level	0.12%	0.13%	0.07%
-- Proportion bars in local block group	0.01%	0.09%	0.00%
-- Proportion bars in adjacent block groups	0.02%	0.24%	0.16%
-- Proportion bars at city level	1.16%	3.53%	9.98%
-- Proportion restaurants in local block group	−0.01%	0.01%	0.01%
-- Proportion restaurants in adjacent block groups	−0.04%	0.05%	0.01%
-- Proportion restaurants at city level	0.02%	0.09%	0.10%

Estimated effects calculated based on sample mean outlet densities. A 10% increase in all outlet types (part A) would not affect the proportions of those outlets that are bars or off-premise outlets. A 10% change in a given outlet category (part B) will raise total density by less than 10%, and will raise the proportion of outlets for the given category but reduce it for other outlet types. Part C demonstrates the contribution of individual outlet covariates to part B’s estimates of the effects of raising bars only by 10%; bold type indicates well-supported contributions based on calculations of sampled MCMC iterations across analyses. Credible intervals shown in parentheses in parts A and B.