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)