Skip to main content

Table 5 Covariate-adjusted estimates for change in odds ratio of taking a transport trip per unit increase in liveability (ULI) and sub-domains indicators (italics), with 95% Credible Intervals (CrI)

From: The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice

  Residential address \(\widehat{AOR}\) (95% CrI) Mesh Block \(\widehat{AOR}\) (95% CrI) SA1 \(\widehat{AOR}\) (95% CrI)
Walking    
 ULI 1.13 (1.12, 1.15) 1.14 (1.12, 1.16) 1.15 (1.13, 1.17)
 ULI including air quality* 1.12 (1.09, 1.15) 1.13 (1.10, 1.16) 1.14 (1.11, 1.17)
 Walkability 1.07 (1.07, 1.08) 1.07 (1.07, 1.08) 1.08 (1.07, 1.08)
 Social Infrastructure 1.08 (1.07, 1.09) 1.08 (1.07, 1.09) 1.08 (1.07, 1.09)
 Public transport access meets policy (%) 1.05 (1.04, 1.06) 1.06 (1.05, 1.07) 1.08 (1.07, 1.09)
 Large park access (%) 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) 1.00 (0.98, 1.01)
 Air quality – 0.94 (0.93, 0.94) 0.93 (0.93, 0.94)
 Affordable housing – – 1.01 (1.00, 1.02)
 Local work opportunities – – 1.00 (0.99, 1.01)
Public transport    
 ULI 1.18 (1.15, 1.22) 1.19 (1.16, 1.22) 1.20 (1.16, 1.23)
 ULI including air quality* 1.15 (1.11, 1.19) 1.15 (1.11, 1.20) 1.16 (1.11, 1.21)
 Walkability 1.10 (1.10, 1.11) 1.10 (1.09, 1.11) 1.10 (1.09, 1.11)
 Social Infrastructure 1.11 (1.10, 1.13) 1.11 (1.10, 1.13) 1.12 (1.10, 1.13)
 Public transport access meets  policy (%) 1.09 (1.07, 1.11) 1.11 (1.09, 1.13) 1.14 (1.12, 1.16)
 Large park access (%) 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) 0.98 (0.97, 1.00) 0.99 (0.97, 1.00)
 Air quality – 0.90 (0.89, 0.91) 0.90 (0.89, 0.91)
 Affordable housing – – 1.01 (1.00, 1.02)
 Local work opportunities – – 0.97 (0.96, 0.98)
Cycling    
 ULI 1.15 (1.11, 1.20) 1.16 (1.11, 1.22) 1.18 (1.13, 1.24)
 ULI including air quality* 1.10 (1.04, 1.17) 1.11 (1.04, 1.18) 1.13 (1.06, 1.21)
 Walkability 1.10 (1.08, 1.12) 1.10 (1.08, 1.12) 1.10 (1.08, 1.12)
 Social Infrastructure 1.10 (1.08, 1.13) 1.10 (1.08, 1.13) 1.11 (1.08, 1.14)
 Public transport access meets  policy (%) 1.06 (1.03, 1.08) 1.08 (1.05, 1.11) 1.11 (1.08, 1.15)
 Large park access (%) 1.00 (0.98, 1.02) 0.99 (0.97, 1.02) 1.00 (0.97, 1.02)
 Air quality – 0.91 (0.88, 0.92) 0.90 (0.88, 0.92)
 Affordable housing – – 1.01 (0.98, 1.03)
 Local work opportunities – – 0.97 (0.95, 0.99)
Driving    
 ULI 0.85 (0.83, 0.87) 0.84 (0.82, 0.86) 0.84 (0.81, 0.86)
 ULI including air quality* 0.88 (0.85, 0.91) 0.87 (0.84, 0.90) 0.86 (0.83, 0.89)
 Walkability 0.91 (0.90, 0.92) 0.91 (0.90, 0.92) 0.91 (0.89, 0.91)
 Social Infrastructure 0.90 (0.89, 0.91) 0.90 (0.90, 0.91) 0.90 (0.89, 0.91)
 Public transport access meets  policy (%) 0.94 (0.92, 0.95) 0.92 (0.90, 0.93) 0.90 (0.88, 0.91)
 Large park access (%) 1.02 (1.01, 1.03) 1.03 (1.01, 1.04) 1.03 (1.01, 1.04)
 Air quality – 1.10 (1.09, 1.11) 1.10 (1.09, 1.11)
 Affordable housing – – 0.99 (0.98, 1.00)
 Local work opportunities – – 1.02 (1.00, 1.03)
  1. Results are for separate models for each outcome-exposure of interest-scale combination, with adjustment for age, gender, household type and income, car ownership, employment and day of the week. Indicators based on larger aggregate data sources were identical at smaller aggregations or address points and so are omitted (–) in these cases
  2. * Sensitivity analysis
Back to article page

International Journal of Health Geographics

ISSN: 1476-072X