Skip to main content

Table 5 Total and direct effects of parent-perceived neighbourhood environment characteristics on adolescents’ active transport to/from school (multiple imputations)

From: Associations between parental perceptions of neighbourhood environments and active travel to school: IPEN Adolescent study

Neighbourhood characteristics [range of values]

Effect

Any active transport to/from school

Regular cycling to/from school#

Regular walking to/from school

OR

95% CI

p

OR

95% CI

p

OR

95% CI

p

Residential density [0–1000]

Total

1.001

1.000, 1.001

.006

0.999

0.998, 1.00

.050

1.001

1.000, 1.001

.002

 

Direct

1.000

0.999, 1.001

.149

0.999

0.998, 1.00

.077

1.000

0.999, 1.001

.148

Land use mix – diversity1 [1–5]

Total

1.38

1.26, 1.51

<.001

1.09

0.93, 1.29

.284

1.46

1.33, 1.59

<.001

 

Direct

1.34

1.20, 1.49

<.001

1.13

0.93, 1.39

.226

1.44

1.30, 1.59

<.001

Transit stop proximity [1–5]

Total

1.00

0.89, 1.13

.982

1.01

0.85, 1.19

.935

0.97

0.88, 1.07

.550

 

Direct

1.00

0.88, 1.13

.951

1.01

0.85, 1.19

.919

0.96

0.87, 1.06

.460

Recreational facilities2 [1–5]

Totala

1.01

0.91, 1.13

.796

0.96

0.78, 1.18

.723

1.05

0.94, 1.16

.412

Park proximity [1–5]

Total

0.98

0.91, 1.06

.674

0.93

0.82, 1.06

.296

0.98

0.91, 1.05

.601

 

Direct

0.98

0.91, 1.05

.541

0.92

0.80, 1.05

.211

0.98

0.91, 1.05

.493

Accessibility & walking facilities [1–4]

Totala

1.15

1.00, 1.32

.050

1.00

0.76, 1.31

.988

1.18

1.01, 1.37

.036

Traffic safety [1–4]

Totala

1.13

1.00, 1.27

.044

1.09

0.87, 1.36

.461

1.06

0.95, 1.19

.308

Pedestrian infrastructure [1–4]

Totala

1.08

0.97, 1.21

.176

1.03

0.82, 1.29

.800

1.10

0.97, 1.24

.128

Safety from crime [1–4]

Totala

0.96

0.84, 1.10

.566

1.25

1.05, 1.49

.011

0.92

0.79, 1.08

.333

Aesthetics [1–4]

Totala

1.00

0.87, 1.14

.955

1.22

1.00, 1.48

.050

0.96

0.85, 1.09

.533

Buffers between streets & footpath [1–4]

Total

0.98

0.91, 1.05

.499

0.97

0.84, 1.11

.647

0.99

0.92, 1.06

.720

 

Direct

0.94

0.87, 1.02

.132

0.99

0.86, 1.15

.929

0.95

0.87, 1.02

.160

Parking difficult [1–4]

Totala

1.04

0.96, 1.12

.332

0.91

0.79, 1.05

.184

1.04

0.97, 1.13

.260

Trees [1–4]

Total

0.99

0.91, 1.07

.707

0.94

0.81, 1.09

.407

1.03

0.95, 1.11

.458

 

Direct

0.97

0.89, 1.07

.545

0.89

0.76, 1.05

.181

1.03

0.94, 1.12

.555

Distance to school [1–5]

Totala

0.39

0.36, 0.42

<.001

0.91

0.83, 1.01

.081

0.41

0.39, 0.44

<.001

  1. 1excluding transit stops, 2 excluding parks, OR Odd ratio, CI Confidence intervals, p = p-value; in bold: effects significant at p < 0.05, # N = 5703 instead of 6302 because data from Israel, Portugal and Olomouc in the Czech Republic were excluded from the analyses due to 0% prevalence of regular cycling to/from school. The reference category of all outcome variables is ‘No’. Regular cycling/walking to/from school means cycling/walking to/from school 5–10 times a week. Analyses undertaken on 20 imputed datasets. aTotal and direct effects are equivalent as no mediating variables of characteristic-outcome associations were included in the models. Complete case analyses are in the Supplementary Material (Tables S21, S22 and S23). Model covariates were based on DAG depicted in Supplementary Materials (Fig S1). All models adjusted for adolescent age, adolescent sex, area-level SES, highest education in the household, number of children, number of adults and city. Additional adjustments per model included:
  2. Residential density models: marital status. Direct effect: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix – diversity1; number of driving license; number of motor vehicles; parking difficult; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; distance to school; recreational facilities2; safety from crime; traffic safety; transit stop proximity; trees
  3. Land use mix diversity models (excluding transit stops): marital status; residential density. Direct effect: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; number of driving license; number of motor vehicles; parking difficult; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; traffic safety; transit stop proximity; trees
  4. Transit stop proximity models: land use mix diversity; residential density. Direct effect: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; number of driving license; marital status; number of motor vehicles; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; recreational facilities2; safety from crime; traffic safety; trees
  5. Recreational facilities (excluding parks): accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; number of driving license; marital status; number of motor vehicles; residential density; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; traffic safety; transit stop proximity; trees
  6. Park proximity: land use mix diversity; residential density. Direct effect: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; traffic safety; trees
  7. Accessibility and walking facilities: aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; residential density; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; traffic safety; trees; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; residential density; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; traffic safety; trees
  8. Traffic safety: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; residential density; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; trees
  9. Pedestrians infrastructure and safety: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; residential density; parks proximity; safety from crime; traffic safety; trees
  10. Safety from crime: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; residential density; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; traffic safety; trees
  11. Aesthetics: accessibility and walking facilities; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; residential density; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; traffic safety; trees
  12. Buffers between street and footpath: residential density. Direct effect: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; land use mix diversity; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; traffic safety; trees
  13. Parking difficult: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; number of driving license; marital status; number of motor vehicles; residential density; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; recreational facilities no parks; safety from crime; traffic safety; transit stops; trees
  14. Trees: residential density. Direct effect: accessibility and walking facilities; aesthetics; buffers between street and footpath; land use mix diversity; parks proximity; pedestrian infrastructure and safety; safety from crime; traffic safety
  15. Distance to school: residential density
Back to article page

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us