An Open Access Journal
Table 8 Average walking frequencies, explanatory factors and p-values for associated ANOVA across neighborhoods
From: Utilitarian and hedonic walking: examining the impact of the built environment on walking behavior
Variables | Neighborhood | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
O1 | O2 | SM1 | SM2 | M1 | M2 | ||
Walking behavior | |||||||
 Utilitarian walking | 11.01 | 9.97 | 8.25 | 8.74 | 10.37 | 9.06 | 0.000 |
 Hedonic walking | 3.01 | 3.05 | 3.21 | 2.27 | 3.77 | 1.96 | 0.000 |
Objective measures of the built environment | |||||||
 Residential density | 132 | 73.45 | 90 | 57.32 | 160 | 115 | 0.001 |
 Entropy index | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.67 | 0.30 | 0.000 |
 Street density | 70.1 | 45.4 | 42.7 | 24.6 | 50.36 | 48.9 | 0.000 |
 Cul-de-sac density | 623.5 | 492 | 300 | 250 | 95.8 | 18.19 | 0.004 |
 Density of bus route | 7.2 | 10.1 | 12.15 | 5.3 | 8.49 | 3.8 | 0.003 |
Perceived measures of the built environment | |||||||
 Facility accessibility | 3.8 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 0.000 |
 Safety | 3.1 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 3 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 0.002 |
 Attractiveness | 2.4 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 4.3 | 3.3 | 0.002 |
 Walking infrastructure | 2.7 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 0.001 |
 Socializing | 4.2 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 0.104 |
Residential preferences | |||||||
 Facility accessibility | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 0.010 |
 Safety | 3 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3 | 3 | 2.8 | 0.000 |
 Attractiveness | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.8 | 3 | 0.124 |
 Walking infrastructure | 1.9 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.003 |
 Socializing | 2.3 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 0.000 |
Attitudes factors | |||||||
 Pro-walking | 4.2 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 3 | 4.3 | 3.2 | 0.000 |
 Car dependent | 2.3 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 0.043 |
 Travel Minimizing | 3.4 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 0.001 |
 Travel stress | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 0.006 |