Differences in physical environmental characteristics between adolescents’ actual and shortest cycling routes: a study using a Google Street View-based audit

Table 2 Presence of items on land use along actual cycling routes compared to shortest cycling routes

Item	Actual cycling route (m/km; M ± SD)	Shortest cycling route (m/km; M ± SD)	OR (95% CI)
Mixed land use	256 ± 226	386 ± 317	0.84 (0.71; 1.00)*
Types of buildings
Single buildings	155 ± 247	153 ± 256	1.00 (0.83; 1.21)
Closed/semi-detached buildings	225 ± 190	139 ± 182	1.30 (0.99; 1.70)^t
Apartment buildings	111 ± 200	161 ± 244	0.90 (0.73; (1.12)
Commercial destinations	233 ± 229	367 ± 304	0.83 (0.69; 0.99)*
Heavy industry	9 ± 39	17 ± 63	0.74 (0.29; 1.91)
Public destinations	248 ± 196	355 ± 300	0.84 (0.70; 1.02)^t
Recreational destinations	85 ± 105	121 ± 212	0.87 (0.65; 1.17)
Natural features	315 ± 314	257 ± 286	1.07 (0.91; 1.25)
Openness view
Open view	65 ± 174	24 ± 81	1.29 (0.85; 1.96)
Not open/closed view	354 ± 229	370 ± 271	0.98 (0.81; 1.17)
Closed view	166 ± 168	146 ± 185	1.07 (0.82; 1.39)

Reference = shortest cycling route. For ease of interpretation of OR, distances were converted to hectometres (100 m/km)
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ^tp ≤ 0.1

ISSN: 1476-072X