Skip to main content

Table 3 Bivariate and multivariate analyses of association between total natural space and positive emotional well-being (N = 17 249)

From: Exposure to public natural space as a protective factor for emotional well-being among young people in Canada

  Positive emotional well-being Model PEWa Model 1b Model 2c Model 3d
  n % RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI)
Total natural space       
 1 (0.0% - 8.8%) 2 270 55.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 2 (8.8% - 24.3%) 2 347 52.3 0.94 (0.88-1.00) 0.99 (0.94-1.03) 0.98 (0.93-1.03) 0.99 (0.94-1.03)
 3 (24.3% - 46.3%) 2 731 57.5 1.03 (0.98-1.09) 1.05 (1.00-1.10) 1.05 (1.00-1.10) 1.05 (1.00-1.10)
 4 (46.3% - 95.0%) 2 118 54.0 1.00 (0.93-1.06) 1.01 (0.95-1.06) 1.02 (0.96-1.08) 1.01 (0.95-1.06)
 P trend    0.36 0.23 0.11 0.22
Individual-level       
Gender       
 Boys 4 795 58.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Girls 4 671 51.6 0.88 (0.86-0.91) 0.88 (0.86-0.91) 0.88 (0.86-0.91) 0.88 (0.86-0.91)
 P value    <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Age       
 ≤11 1 451 61.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 12 2 098 60.4 0.99 (0.95-1.04) 1.00 (0.95-1.04) 1.00 (0.95-1.04) 1.00 (0.95-1.04)
 13 1 838 52.2 0.91 (0.86-0.95) 0.91 (0.86-0.96) 0.91 (0.86-0.96) 0.91 (0.87-0.96)
 14 1 739 52.5 0.87 (0.82-0.92) 0.87 (0.83-0.92) 0.87 (0.83-0.92) 0.87 (0.83-0.93)
 15 1 693 49.7 0.81 (0.77-0.86) 0.83 (0.78-0.87) 0.82 (0.77-0.87) 0.83 (0.77-0.87)
 ≥16 647 48.0 0.78 (0.72-0.84) 0.81 (0.75-0.87) 0.81 (0.75-0.87) 0.81 (0.75-0.87)
 P trend    <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Ethnicity       
 Caucasian 6 963 56.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Aboriginal 449 41.4 0.75 (0.69-0.80) 0.80 (0.75-0.86) 0.81 (0.75-0.87) 0.81 (0.75-0.87)
 East and Southeast Asian 511 49.5 0.87 (0.81-0.93) 0.94 (0.88-1.00) 0.94 (0.88-1.00) 0.94 (0.88-1.00)
 South Asian 263 59.1 1.03 (0.94-1.12) 1.07 (0.98-1.15) 1.07 (0.98-1.16) 1.07 (0.99-1.16)
 West Asian and Arab 120 56.6 1.01 (0.89-1.13) 1.08 (0.95-1.19) 1.08 (0.96-1.20) 1.08 (0.96-1.20)
 Black 166 52.2 0.95 (0.85-1.05) 1.03 (0.93-1.13) 1.04 (0.93-1.14) 1.04 (0.94-1.14)
 Other 304 52.6 0.93 (0.86-1.01) 0.97 (0.90-1.05) 0.98 (0.90-1.05) 0.98 (0.90-1.05)
 Mixed 690 52.1 0.92 (0.87-0.97) 0.95 (0.90-1.00) 0.95 (0.90-1.01) 0.95 (0.90-1.01)
 P value    <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Family affluence       
 Low (FAS 0–3) 495 37.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Medium (FAS 4–5) 2 875 48.0 1.25 (1.17-1.33) 1.22 (1.13-1.30) 1.22 (1.13-1.30) 1.21 (1.13-1.30)
 High (FAS 6–7) 6 096 61.3 1.30 (1.26-1.34) 1.27 (1.23-1.31) 1.27 (1.23-1.31) 1.27 (1.23-1.31)
 P trend    <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Neighborhood is safe for playing       
 1 (disagree/strongly disagree) 583 46.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 2 (neither agree/disagree 1 358 46.8 1.01 (0.94-1.08) 1.02 (0.94-1.09) 1.02 (0.94-1.09) 1.02 (0.94-1.09)
 3 (agree) 4 116 52.3 1.13 (1.07-1.20) 1.12 (1.05-1.18) 1.12 (1.05-1.18) 1.12 (1.05-1.18)
 4 (strongly agree) 3 412 65.3 1.39 (1.33-1.45) 1.35 (1.28-1.41) 1.35 (1.28-1.41) 1.35 (1.28-1.41)
 P trend    <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Area-level       
Neighborhood rundown houses       
 Not a problem 7 286 56.1 1.00   1.00 1.00
 Minor problem 1 666 52.3 0.92 (0.87-0.92)   0.96 (0.91-1.01) 0.96 (0.91-1.00)
 Moderate/major problem 514 48.0 0.85 (0.77-0.85)   0.93 (0.85-1.04) 0.92 (0.85-1.00)
 P trend    <0.0001   0.005 0.009
Neighborhood litter/garbage       
 Not a problem 3 089 56.5 1.00   1.00  
 Minor problem 4 932 55.2 0.97 (0.92-0.97)   1.00 (0.96-1.05)  
 Moderate/major problem 1 445 50.7 0.87 (0.81-0.87)   0.96 (0.90-1.03)  
 P trend    0.0003   0.58  
Neighborhood SES       
 Low (lowest tertile) 2 735 54.8 1.00   1.00  
 Medium 3 217 53.6 0.99 (0.94-0.99)   0.98 (0.94-1.03)  
 High (highest tertile) 3 514 56.3 1.03 (0.98-1.03)   0.97 (0.92-1.02)  
 P trend    0.20   0.21  
Urban/rural geographic location       
 Rural area (<10 000) 2 655 55.2 1.00   1.00  
 Small city (10 000–99 999) 3 951 55.8 1.02 (0.97-1.02)   0.99 (0.94-1.04)  
 Metropolitan area (≥100 000) 2 860 53.4 0.98 (0.92-0.98)   1.01 (0.97-1.07)  
 P trend    0.37   0.51  
  1. The intraclass correlation coefficient is 2.85%.
  2. aModel PEW: Bivariate models of positive emotional well-being and each covariate.
  3. bModel 1: Multivariate model with individual-level covariates only.
  4. cModel 2: Multivariate model with individual- and area-level covariates.
  5. dModel 3: Multivariate model with individual- and area-level covariates significant at p < 0.05 in Model 2.
  6. RR (95% CI), Risk ratio (95% Confidence Intervals).
  7. FAS, Family Affluence Scale.
  8. SES, Socio-economic status.
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us