Children’s GPS-determined versus self-reported transport in leisure time and associations with parental perceptions of the neighborhood environment

Table 2 Associations between parental perceptions of the neighborhood environment and GPS-determined transport (in trips/day)

	Walking (trips/day) Week	Cycling (trips/day) Week	Passive transport (trips/day) Week
	Gaussian model (n = 126)	Gamma model (n = 126)	Gamma model (n = 126)
	β (95 % CI)	Exp b (95 % CI)^a	Exp b (95 % CI)^a
Residential density	0.01 (−0.01, 0.01)	1.00 (0.99, 1.00)	0.99 (0.99, 1.00)**
Land use mix access	−0.34 (−0.75, 0.08)	1.13 (1.01, 1.27)*	0.85 (0.73, 1.00)⁽*⁾
Street network connectivity	−0.03 (−0.53, 0.46)	1.14 (0.99, 1.31)⁽*⁾	1.10 (0.91, 1.32)
Walking and cycling facilities	0.11 (−0.34, 0.57)	0.83 (0.73, 0.94)**	0.94 (0.79, 1.12)
Aesthetics	0.36 (−0.17, 0.90)	0.96 (0.84, 1.11)	1.04 (0.85, 1.28)
Traffic safety	−0.24 (−0.64, 0.16)	0.99 (0.88, 1.10)	0.95 (0.81, 1.11)
Crime safety	0.25 (−0.07, 0.56)	1.13 (0.93, 1.34)	0.97 (0.87, 1.10)

	Walking (trips/day) Weekend		Cycling (trips/day) Weekend		Passive transport (trips/day) Weekend
	Logistic model^b (n = 126)	Gamma model^c (n = 95)	Logistic model^b (n = 126)	Gamma model^c (n = 85)	Logistic model^b (n = 126)	Gamma model^c (n = 101)
	OR (95 % CI)	Exp b (95 % CI)^a	OR (95 % CI)	Exp b (95 % CI)^a	OR (95 % CI)	Exp b (95 % CI)^a
Residential density	0.99 (0.96, 1.01)	1.00 (0.99, 1.02)	1.00 (0.97, 1.02)	1.00 (0.98, 1.01)	0.99 (0.96, 1.03)	1.00 (0.98, 1.01)
Land use mix access	1.30 (0.53, 3.21)	0.87 (0.53, 1.43)	0.94 (0.42, 2.10)	1.03 (0.64, 1.66)	0.48 (0.16, 1.47)	0.97 (0.65, 1.45)
Street network connectivity	1.03 (0.35, 2.98)	1.08 (0.60, 1.93)	0.81 (0.31, 2.11)	0.86 (0.47, 1.58)	1.22 (0.33, 4.50)	0.84 (0.51, 1.39)
Walking and cycling facilities	1.09 (0.39, 3.03)	1.74 (1.07, 2.85)*	1.25 (0.50, 3.16)	1.45 (0.81, 2.57)	1.16 (0.34, 3.92)	1.17 (0.76, 1.82)
Aesthetics	0.62 (0.19, 2.06)	1.33 (0.75, 2.34)	1.34 (0.44, 4.12)	0.74 (0.39, 1.40)	2.49 (0.61, 10.15)	0.84 (0.48, 1.45)
Traffic safety	1.53 (0.62, 3.77)	0.91 (0.56, 1.50)	0.83 (0.38, 1.82)	0.94 (0.57, 1.56)	0.88 (0.33, 2.35)	1.01 (0.68, 1.48)
Crime safety	1.14 (0.56, 2.31)	1.03 (0.73, 1.47)	0.65 (0.35, 1.22)	1.02 (0.76, 1.49)	1.70 (0.79, 3.68)	1.22 (0.90, 1.65)

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
italic = significant (p < 0.05)
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; ^(*) p < 0.10
All models were adjusted for age, sex, socio-economic status (SES), school and wear time
^aExp b = exponent of b, all Gamma models were fitted using a log link function, the exponent of the b’s can be interpreted as a proportional increase in the dependent variable (in trips/day) with a one-unit increase in the independent variable
^bThe logistic model estimates the associations between the independent variables and the odds of walking, cycling or using passive transport during weekend days
^cThe Gamma model estimates the associations between the independent variables and the amount of walking, cycling or passive transport during weekend days (in trips/day) among those who have walked, cycled and used passive transport during weekend days

ISSN: 1476-072X