Table 3. Association between perceived and objective neighborhood environment factors and leisure walking by socioeconomic status in adolescent boys from Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil, 2017.
| Perceived Environment | Leisure walking | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Model 1a | Model 2a | |||||
|
|
|
|||||
| SES (n = 526) | SES (n = 526) | |||||
|
|
|
|||||
| Low (n = 175) | Middle (n = 180) | High (n = 171) | Low (n = 175) | Middle (n = 180) | High (n = 171) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OR (CI-95%) | OR (CI-95%) | OR (CI-95%) | OR (CI-95%) | OR (CI-95%) | OR (CI-95%) | |
| Land use mix – diversity | 0.84 (0.47–1.51) | 1.30 (0.81–2.07)b | 1.81 (1.09–3.02)b | 0.84 (0.47–1.51) | 1.40 (0.91–2.18)b | 1.81 (1.11–2.94)b |
| Neighborhood recreation facilities | 1.45 (0.89–2.36) | 1.55 (1.06–2.29)b | 2.32 (1.26–3.93)b | 1.38 (0.85–2.23) | 1.60 (1.09–2.35)b | 2.28 (1.35–3.86)b |
| Access to services | 0.59 (0.24–1.45) | 1.40 (0.64–3.02) | 1.06 (0.75–1.51) | 0.57 (0.23–1.40) | 1.27 (0.57–2.79) | 1.09 (0.77–1.55) |
| Street connectivity | 1.01 (0.60–1.71) | 0.84 (0.50–1.43) | 0.57 (0.30–1.08) | 1.04 (0.61–1.78) | 0.94 (0.55–1.63) | 0.56 (0.30–1.04) |
| Places for walking | 0.94 (0.56–1.57) | 1.07 (0.57–2.00) | 2.07 (1.03–4.19) | 1.01 (0.60–1.69) | 0.99 (0.53–1.86) | 2.22 (1.10–4.46) |
| Neighborhood aesthetics | 1.15 (0.68–1.96) | 1.01 (0.60–1.70) | 1.54 (0.85–2.78) | 1.05 (0.62–1.77) | 0.89 (0.52–1.53) | 1.47 (0.82–2.63) |
| Neighborhood safety | 1.59 (0.58–4.38) | 1.31 (0.56–3.06) | 1.15 (0.46–2.90) | 1.44 (0.53–3.91) | 1.36 (0.58–3.17) | 1.34 (0.53–3.38) |
| Crime safety | 0.59 (0.37–0.95) | 0.92 (0.58–1.48) | 0.93 (0.55–1.56) | 0.63 (0.36–0.98) | 0.89 (0.55–1.45) | 0.87 (0.53–1.42) |
| Objective (GIS) | ||||||
| Lower distance for parks and squares | ||||||
| 1 tertile (close) | 0.42 (0.15–1.14)b | 0.33 (0.11–1.01)b | 0.40 (0.15–1.04)b | 0.37 (0.13–1.01) | 0.35 (0.11–1.02) | 0.51 (0.18–1.46) |
| 2 tertile (medium) | 0.47 (0.18–1.23)b | 0.67 (0.27–1.66)b | 0.74 (0.26–2.09)b | 0.40 (0.14–1.11) | 0.67 (0.23–1.67) | 0.91 (0.31–2.66) |
| 3 tertile (far) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lower distance for bicycle path | ||||||
| 1 tertile (close) | 0.86 (0.33–2.24) | 1.13 (0.36–3.51) | 0.51 (0.14–1.80) | 0.89 (0.33–2.41)b | 1.61 (0.53–4.87)b | 0.50 (0.15–1.66)b |
| 2 tertile (medium) | 1.93 (0.75–4.98) | 0.78 (0.32–1.87) | 0.35 (0.10–1.21) | 1.83 (0.71–4.74)b | 0.77 (0.30–1.93)b | 0.43 (0.12–1.48)b |
| 3 tertile (far) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Objective Environment Factors | (0.5km - buffers) | (1km – buffers) | ||||
| Existence of parks and squares | ||||||
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 1.46 (0.60–3.53)b | 0.80 (0.36–1.77)b | 0.49 (0.20–1.17)b | 2.77 (0.74–10.30) | 0.91 (0.28–2.97) | 0.96 (0.20–4.50) |
| Existence of bicycle path | ||||||
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 0.79 (0.57–1.09) | 2.70 (0.93–7.85) | 0.35 (0.10–1.22) | 2.30 (0.98–5.25)b | 1.73 (0.71–4.24)b | 0.43 (0.15–1.18)b |
| Residential density* | 1.21 (0.79–1.85)b | 0.80 (0.55–1.17)b | 1.07 (0.70–1.64)b | 1.31 (0.86–1.99)b | 0.70 (0.43–1.16)b | 1.16 (0.74–1.83)b |
| Connectivity between streets* | 1.27 (0.84–1.94)b | 1.05 (0.73–1.50)b | 1.03 (0.61–1.74)b | 1.01 (0.66–1.56)b | 1.10 (0.75–1.61)b | 0.61 (0.36–1.04)b |
| Blocks density* | 1.56 (0.96–2.53)b | 0.69 (0.47–1.02)b | 1.31 (0.77–2.25)b | 1.37 (0.86–2.18)b | 0.76 (0.49–1.16)b | 0.97 (0.56–1.68)b |
| Average size of the blocks* | 0.90 (0.50–1.61)b | 1.12 (0.56–2.25)b | 1.23 (0.56–2.69)b | 1.21 (0.75–1.98)b | 0.96 (0.64–1.45)b | 1.46 (0.87–2.43)b |
| Walkability index* | 1.09 (0.93–1.28)b | 1.02 (0.88–1.17)b | 0.97 (0.81–1.17)b | 1.13 (0.96–1.33)b | 1.01 (0.88–1.17)b | 0.87 (0.72–1.04)b |
*Standardized variables (transformed into z-scores). a Adjusted for age and region. b Adjusted for model 1a, without the environmental variables that present high collinearity (rho ≥ 0.60).