Table 3.
Intercept survey: mean changes in secondary outcome measures over time by experimental group including group difference, significance level and 95% CIs.
| Difference T1 to T2 | Difference T1 to T3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Mean (SD) |
Comparison Mean (SD) |
Group Difference |
t-Test p-Value |
Intervention Mean (SD) |
Comparison Mean (SD) |
Group Difference |
t-Test p-Value |
|
| 6 park intention-to-treat analysis a | ||||||||
| PANAS emotional state | ||||||||
| Positive affect (mean) | −2.47 (2.9) | 0.75 (2.7) | −3.22 | 0.23 | −3.90 (4.4) | 0.00 (0.4) | −3.90 | 0.20 |
| Negative affect (mean) | −0.70 (3.1) | 0.04 (0.6) | −0.75 | 0.70 | −2.75 (4.2) | 0.39 (1.1) | −3.14 | 0.28 |
| Park facilities—mean attractiveness rating | 3.92 (2.5) | −0.40 (2.3) | 4.31 | 0.10 | 3.51 (2.6) | 1.03 (1.1) | 2.48 | 0.20 |
| Community social cohesion score b | - | - | - | - | 1.04 (5.6) | −2.62 (1.8) | 3.66 | 0.34 |
| Frequency met/talked to new people at park in past 3 months | −0.31 (0.7) | −0.44 (0.6) | 0.13 | 0.82 | 0.39 (0.9) | −1.2 (0.6) | 1.62 | 0.05 |
| Frequency met/talked to known people at park in past 3 months | −0.43 (0.8) | −0.53 (0.7) | 0.10 | 0.87 | 0.60 (1.8) | −0.88 (1.1) | 1.48 | 0.28 |
| Frequency participated in social event at park in past 3 months | −0.05 (0.5) | −0.47 (0.8) | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.41 (1.0) | 0.04 (0.5) | 0.37 | 0.58 |
a Park visitors’ self-reported emotional state, frequency of social engagement, and park aesthetic rating as measured in park intercept surveys at each study time-period. b Survey questions for community social cohesion score were not asked at T2. Instead the set of five questions asked if compared to last spring/summer, I feel less, about the same or more about the following statements to do with my community. Note: Number of intercept surveys completed: (i) overall T1 = 88, T2 = 103, T3 = 66; (ii) by study group T1: Ix = 40, C = 48; T2: Ix = 78, C = 25; T3: Ix = 43, C = 23. Percentage missing T1–T3 on self-reported outcomes: positive affect 28%, negative affect 32%, park aesthetics score 20%, community social cohesion score 10%, frequency met/talked to new people 2%, frequency met/talked to known people 3%, frequency participated in social event 2%.