Skip to main content

Table 3 Within and between city differences in dog walkers and non-dog walkers perceptions of safety

From: The association between dog walking, physical activity and owner’s perceptions of safety: cross-sectional evidence from the US and Australia

  San Diego (n = 276) β (95 % CI)1 Portland (n = 233) β (95 % CI)1 Nashville (n = 296) β (95 % CI)1 Perth (n = 308) β (95 % CI)1 Significant between city comparisons (Dog walkers only)2 p-value
Feel safe in neighborhood3 −0.13 (−0.61,0.36) −0.01 (−0.54,0.53) 0.27 (−0.22,0.76) 0.00 (−0.43,0.47) 0.000 PE < SD, PL, NV
Neighborhood problems4 0.98 (−0.61,2.56) 2.20 (0.38,4.02)* 0.51 (−1.07,2.09) −0.29 (−1.62,1.04) 0.08 PE > NV*
Neighborhood natural surveillance3 0.21 (−0.16,0.57) −0.88 (−0.45,0.28) 0.44 (0.08,0.79)* 0.29 (−0.04,0.62) 0.000 PE < PL, NV
Feel safe if have neighborhood natural surveillance3 0.07 (−0.29,0.43) 0.10 (−0.28,0.48) 0.20 (−0.17,0.57) 0.11 (−0.21,0.43) 0.000 PE < SD, PL, NV
  1. *p ≤ 0.05; SD San Diego, PL Portland, NV Nashville, PE Perth
  2. 1All models adjusted for age group, sex, highest education level, ethnicity (US); country of birth (Aust), number of children in household, housing type, time livedin neighborhood; Reference group = Non-dog walker
  3. 2Reference group = Perth
  4. 3Measured on a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree
  5. 4Count of neighborhood problems (range 0–12)