Table 2.
Linear regression models (unstandardized β, 95%CI) for perceived urban environment attributes and body mass index (kg/m2).
| Independent variables | Overall | Argentina | Brazil | Chile | Colombia | Costa Rica | Ecuador | Peru | Venezuela |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | |
| Land use mix-diversity (score 1–5)1 | − 0.44* (− 0.59; − 0.28) | − 0.45* (− 0.88; − 0.01) | − 0.36* (− 0.69; − 0.04) | − 0.55 (− 1.20; 0.09) | − 0.05 (− 0.46; 0.35) | − 0.51 (− 1.08; 0.06) | − 0.55 (− 1.19; 0.07) | − 0.31 (− 0.78; 0.15) | − 0.24 (− 0.67; 0.19) |
| Land use mix-access (score 1–4)1 | 0.13 (− 0.15; 0.42) | 0.01 (− 0.80; 0.80) | − 0.18 (− 0.84; 0.47) | − 0.22 (− 1.11; 0.65) | 0.16 (− 0.64; 0.97) | 0.38 (− 0.64; 1.42) | 0.60 (− 0.51; 1.72) | − 0.19 (− 0.94; 0.56) | − 1.20* (− 2.02; − 0.38) |
| Street connectivity (score 1–4)2 | 0.15 (− 0.05; 0.37) | 0.20 (− 0.35; 0.76) | 0.41 (− 0.02; 0.86) | 0.19 (− 0.38; 0.77) | − 0.31 (− 0.95; 0.32) | − 0.01 (− 0.80; 0.78) | − 0.11 (− 1.00; 0.77) | − 0.36 (− 0.98; 0.26) | − 0.05 (− 0.69; 0.59) |
| Walking/cycling facilities (score 1–4)1 | − 0.02 (− 0.21; 0.17) | 0.25 (− 0.41; 0.91) | 0.38 (− 0.07; 0.84) | 0.20 (− 0.43; 0.84) | 0.24 (− 0.33; 0.81) | 0.20 (− 0.39; 0.81) | 0.34 (− 1.25; 0.56) | − 0.05 (− 0.50; 0.40) | − 0.46* (− 0.68; − 0.24) |
| Aesthetics (score 1–4)1 | − 0.05 (− 0.22; 0.11) | − 0.60* (− 1.13; − 0.08) | − 0.15 (− 0.50; 0.18) | − 0.31 (− 0.82; 0.18) | 0.06 (− 0.46; 0.58) | − 0.10 (− 0.75; 0.54) | − 0.50 (− 0.75; 0.65) | 0.13 (− 0.33; 0.60) | 0.15 (− 0.33; 0.64) |
| Safety from traffic (score 1–4)2 | − 0.39* (− 0.66; − 0.12) | − 1.04* (− 1.73; − 0.35) | − 0.34 (− 0.96; 0.27) | 0.10 (− 0.61; 0.82) | − 0.36 (− 1.05; 0.32) | − 0.27 (− 1.19; 0.64) | − 0.33 (− 1.28; 0.62) | − 0.34 (− 1.10; 0.41) | − 0.09 (− 0.96; 0.77) |
| Safety from crime (score 1–4)1 | − 0.36* (− 0.57; − 0.15) | − 0.51 (− 1.14; 0.12) | − 0.80* (− 1.27; − 0.34) | − 0.54 (− 1.18; 0.09) | − 0.35 (− 0.93; 0.229 | − 0.16 (− 0.93; 0.59) | − 0.86* (− 1.67; − 0.05) | − 0.48 (− 1.14; 0.18) | 0.45 (− 0.16; 1.07) |
Linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, marital status, work status, socioeconomic level, and energy intake.
*Indicates statistically significant associations (p < 0.05).
CI confidence interval;
1Higher scores indicate perception of higher land use mix-diversity, higher land use mix-access, more walking/cycling facilities, better aesthetics, and more safety from crime.
24-point scale: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), strongly agree (4).