International Journal of Health Geographics

Table 3 Spearman’s rank correlations between LSOA (n = 1656) density and proximity measures*

From: Creating ‘obesogenic realities’; do our methodological choices make a difference when measuring the food environment?

		Density								Proximity
		(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)
Density	Per 1000 population (1)	1.000	0.831	0.549	0.354	0.299	0.494	0.474	0.434	0.512^a	0.478 ^a
	Per km² (2)		1.000	0.658	0.534	0.512	0.575	0.584	0.570	0.640 ^a	0.579 ^a
	Per 400m Euclidean buffer (3)			1.000	0.653	0.586	0.667	0.764	0.718	0.720 ^a	0.674 ^a
	Per 800m Euclidean buffer (4)				1.000	0.926	0.445	0.769	0.854	0.474 ^a	0.474 ^a
	Per 1000m Euclidean buffer (5)					1.000	0.411	0.695	0.783	0.442 ^a	0.442 ^a
	Per 400m street network buffer (6)						1.000	0.610	0.550	0.751 ^a	0.844 ^a
	Per 800m street network buffer (7)							1.000	0.918	0.589 ^a	0.657 ^a
	Per 1000m street network buffer (8)								1.000	0.543 ^a	0.593 ^a
Proximity	Euclidean distance (9)									1.000	0.865
Proximity	Street network distance (10)										1.000

* All results p < 0.001.
^a Inverse of correlation co-efficients presented to aid interpretation between, for example, greater density (higher exposure) and greater proximity (lower exposure).

Back to article page

ISSN: 1476-072X

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com