Skip to main content

Table 2 Overall and site-specific perceived environmental scores [mean (SD)], all scores are in the positive direction, higher scores meaning more agreement with the attribute

From: International study of perceived neighbourhood environmental attributes and Body Mass Index: IPEN Adult study in 12 countries

 

All SITES

AUS

BEL

BRA

COL

CZ

DEN

HK

MEX

NZ

ESP

UK

USA

Site A

Site B

 

Studies 1 and 2

 

Site C

Site D

Site E

Site F

Site G

Site H

Overall Na

14222

2650

1166

697

963

330

167

642

970

677

511

512

496

495

904

843

1287

912

Residential density

88 (133)

36 (41)

84 (73)

100 (123)

77 (82)

91 (70)

92 (70)

86 (65)

414 (240)

38 (41)

29 (47)

18 (26)

49 (68)

22 (25)

200 (104)

40 (41)

39 (57)

60 (79)

Land use mix – diversity (9 destination types)

3.9 (0.7)

3.8 (0.7)

3.6 (0.9)

4.1 (0.5)

4.3 (0.5)

3.9 (0.6)

3.9 (0.7)

4.2 (0.6)

4.0 (0.8)

3.7 (0.6)

3.8 (0.7)

3.6 (0.7)

4.1 (0.6)

3.9 (0.6)

4.6 (0.4)

3.6 (0.7)

3.8 (0.8)

3.6 (0.9)

Land use mix - access

3.4 (0.7)

3.5 (0.7)

3.3 (0.6)

3.7 (0.5)

3.4 (0.5)

3.4 (0.7)

3.4 (0.7)

3.6 (0.6)

3.3 (0.8)

3.3 (0.5)

3.2 (0.6)

3.1 (0.5)

3.4 (0.5)

3.3 (0.5)

3.7 (0.5)

3.3 (0.8)

3.2 (0.8)

3.0 (0.8)

Connectivity

3.0 (0.7)

2.8 (0.9)

2.7 (0.7)

3.3 (0.7)

3.2 (0.5)

3.0 (0.7)

2.9 (0.6)

3.0 (0.6)

3.0 (0.8)

2.9 (0.5)

2.7 (0.5)

2.7 (0.4)

2.8 (0.5)

3.0 (0.5)

3.2 (0.7)

3.1 (0.7)

3.0 (0.8)

3.0 (0.8)

Infrastructure and safety

3.0 (0.6)

3.0 (0.6)

2.8 (0.5)

2.8 (0.8)

2.8 (0.5)

3.1 (0.5)

3.2 (0.5)

3.1 (0.5)

3.3 (0.6)

2.6 (0.4)

2.8 (0.3)

2.8 (0.4)

2.9 (0.4)

2.9 (0.4)

3.3 (0.5)

3.1 (0.5)

3.0 (0.6)

3.1 (0.6)

Aesthetics

2.8 (0.7)

2.9 (0.7)

2.5 (0.6)

2.8 (0.8)

2.5 (0.6)

2.4 (0.6)

2.5 (0.6)

2.7 (0.6)

2.7 (0.7)

2.6 (0.5)

2.8 (0.5)

2.8 (0.5)

2.8 (0.5)

2.8 (0.6)

2.8 (0.7)

2.2 (0.8)

3.1 (0.7)

3.1 (0.6)

Safety from traffic

2.6 (0.7)

2.8 (0.8)

2.4 (0.6)

2.4 (0.8)

2.5 (0.5)

2.9 (0.6)

3.1 (0.5)

2.8 (0.5)

2.7 (0.7)

2.4 (0.5)

2.6 (0.5)

2.6 (0.5)

2.8 (0.4)

2.7 (0.5)

2.4 (0.7)

2.5 (0.7)

2.7 (0.7)

2.7 (0.7)

Safety from crime

3.0 (0.8)

3.0 (0.8)

3.1 (0.6)

2.3 (0.5)

2.1 (0.7)

3.2 (0.6)

3.4 (0.6)

3.3 (0.6)

2.8 (1.1)

2.2 (0.5)

3.0 (0.5)

2.9 (0.4)

3.1 (0.4)

2.9 (0.6)

3.5 (0.6)

2.9 (0.8)

3.4 (0.6)

3.4 (0.7)

Few cul-de-sacs

2.8 (1.0)

2.8 (1.1)

3.0 (0.8)

3.0 (1.1)

2.9 (0.8)

2.9 (0.9)

2.9 (0.9)

2.7 (0.9)

2.9 (1.2)

2.6 (0.8)

2.3 (0.7)

2.3 (0.6)

2.5 (0.7)

2.6 (0.8)

3.5 (0.9)

2.4 (1.0)

2.8 (1.1)

2.8 (1.2)

No major barriers

3.3 (0.9)

3.7 (0.7)

3.3 (0.7)

3.1 (1.0)

3.0 (0.7)

3.4 (0.8)

3.5 (0.8)

3.7 (0.6)

2.7 (1.2)

2.8 (0.7)

3.3 (0.6)

3.2 (0.6)

3.3 (0.5)

3.5 (0.6)

3.6 (0.8)

3.3 (0.8)

3.2 (1.0)

3.7 (0.6)

  1. Notes: aN for some variables is reduced due to missing data, SD: standard deviation. Site A: Olomouc, B: Hradec Kralove, C: North Shore, D: Waitakere, E: Wellington, F: Christchurch, G: Seattle, H: Baltimore
  2. Missing data: residential density (2.4 %), land use mix diversity (0.7 %), land use mix access (0.7 %), connectivity (0.7 %), infrastructure and safety (0.5 %), aesthetics (0.6 %), safety from traffic (0.7 %), safety from crime (0.7 %), cul-de-sacs (0.9 %), no major barriers (0.8 %)
Back to article page

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us