Table 6.
Results of negative binomial regression models for recreational walking
| All |
Traditional |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
| Neighbourhood perceptions | ||||||
| Accessibility | −0.083 (0. 066) |
/ | −0.083 (0.070) | −0.244† (0.138) | / | −0.217 (0.167) |
| Traffic safety | −0.022 (0.070) | / | −0.006 (0.079) | 0.034 (0.190) | / | −0.010 (0.194) |
| Aesthetics | 0.270** (0.100) | / | 0.283** (0.107) | 0.273 (0.230) | / | 0.471† (0.276) |
| Social environment | 0.117 (0.100) | / | 0.069 (0.106) | 0.198 (0.197) | / | 0.144 (0.248) |
| Perceived barriers to walking | ||||||
| Accessibility | / | −0.003 (0.077) | −0.030 (0.080) | / | 0.128 (0.168) | 0.014 (0.203) |
| Traffic safety | / | 0.063 (0.086) | 0.061 (0.092) | / | −0.041 (0.157) | −0.098 (0.153) |
| Aesthetics | / | −0.004 (0.136) | 0.108 (0.144) | / | 0.130 (0.283) | 0.327 (0.304) |
| Social environment | / | −0.213† (0.122) | −0.177 (0.130) | / | −0.147 (0.233) | 0.029 (0.275) |
| Control variables | ||||||
| Gender | −0.063 (0.110) | −0.042 (0.112) | −0.050 (0.110) | −0.058 (0.233) | 0.069 (0.226) | −0.036 (0.242) |
| Age | 0.010** (0.004) | 0.012** (0.004) | 0.011** (0.004) | 0.011† (0.006) | 0.011† (0.007) | 0.010 (0.007) |
| Income | −0.151 (0.218) | −0.127 (0.221) | −0.167 (0.220) | −0.165 (0.390) | 0.081 (0.321) | −0.105 (0.309) |
| Education | 0.009 (0.154) | −0.020 (0.158) | 0.014 (0.156) | 0.048 (0.264) | 0.096 (0.279) | 0.126 (0.266) |
| Employment | 0.001 (0.119) | −0.005 (0.122) | −0.002 (0.119) | 0.310 (0.241) | 0.262 (0.244) | 0.271 (0.238) |
| Constant | −0.536 (0.508) | 0.749† (0.388) | −0.442 (0.648) | −0.727 (0.953) | −0.166 (0.766) | −1.806 (1.506) |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.019 | 0.039 | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Log likelihood | −602.75 | −606.32 | −601.73 | −120.75 | −122.93 | −119.85 |
| N | 289 | 289 | 289 | 62 | 62 | 62 |
| Neighbourhood perceptions | ||||||
| Accessibility | −0.106 (0.114) | / | −0.114 (0.115) | 0.122 (0.212) | / | 0.069 (0.210) |
| Traffic safety | 0.311* (0.128) | / | 0.411** (0.150) | −0.330 (0.210) | / | −0.373† (0.210) |
| Aesthetics | 0.275* (0.137) | / | 0.264† (0.143) | 0.185 (0.214) | / | 0.215 (0.229) |
| Social environment | 0.171 (0.140) | / | 0.111 (0.143) | 0.177 (0.250) | / | 0.202 (0.258) |
| Perceived barriers to walking | ||||||
| Accessibility | / | −0.038 (0.102) | 0.012 (0.103) | / | −0.136 (0.183) | −0.200 (0.182) |
| Traffic safety | / | 0.038 (0.118) | 0.184 (0.128) | / | 0.149 (0.242) | 0.131 (0.234) |
| Aesthetics | / | −0.026 (0.193) | 0.011 (0.196) | / | −0.137 (0.277) | −0.021 (0.286) |
| Social environment | / | −0.219 (0.164) | −0.277† (0.163) | / | 0.029 (0.326) | 0.127 (0.325) |
| Control variables | ||||||
| Gender | −0.151 (0.149) | −0.042 (0.152) | −0.121 (0.149) | −0.075 (0.232) | −0.185 (0.253) | −0.131 (0.251) |
| Age | 0.005 (0.006) | 0.005 (0.006) | 0.007 (0.006) | 0.038*** (0.010) | 0.041*** (0.010) | 0.043*** (0.011) |
| Income | −0.054 (0.315) | −0.198 (0.330) | −0.111 (0.320) | / | / | / |
| Education | −0.133 (0.226) | −0.124 (0.237) | −0.059 (0.227) | 0.393 (0.296) | 0.265 (0.333) | 0.251 (0.325) |
| Employment | −0.153 (0.155) | −0.217 (0.159) | −0.152 (0.154) | 0.497† (0.275) | 0.528† (0.285) | 0.636* (0.300) |
| Constant | −1.088 (0.894) | 1.632** (0.599) | −1.145 (1.092) | −2.169† (1.218) | −1.658* (0.807) | −2.289† (1.324) |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.026 | 0.015 | 0.032 | 0.070 | 0.060 | 0.076 |
| Log likelihood | −345.57 | −349.61 | −343.52 | −122.98 | −124.31 | −122.20 |
| N | 165 | 165 | 165 | 62 | 62 | 62 |
Notes: The coefficients for logistic regression models are odds coefficients. Standard errors are in parentheses.
†
p≤0.10;
*
p≤0.05;
**
p≤0.01;
***
p≤0.001.
The control variable of income is not included in the models for late conventional suburban neighbourhoods. Income is measured as a binary variable (1= $35,000 and above; 0 = less than $35,000). All respondents in the late conventional suburban neighbourhoods who answered the income question indicated income above $35,000.