Correlates of walking and cycling for transport and recreation: factor structure, reliability and behavioural associations of the perceptions of the environment in the neighbourhood scale (PENS)

Emma J Adams , Anna Goodman, Shannon Sahlqvist, Fiona C Bull, David Ogilvie, 2013, in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-87
Location Cardiff, Kenilworth and Southampton.
Population General
Sample size 3516
Factor analysis type confirmatory factor analysis, nan rotation
Stepwise regression no
Removal of insignificant variables no
Reviewed by NAH

Abstract

Background: Emerging evidence suggests that walking and cycling for different purposes such as transport or recreation may be associated with different attributes of the physical environment. Few studies to date have examined these behaviour-specific associations, particularly in the UK. This paper reports on the development, factor structure and test-retest reliability of a new scale assessing perceptions of the environment in the neighbourhood (PENS) and the associations between perceptions of the environment and walking and cycling for transport and recreation.Methods: A new 13-item scale was developed for assessing adults' perceptions of the environment in the neighbourhood (PENS). Three sets of analyses were conducted using data from two sources. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to identify a set of summary environmental variables using data from the iConnect baseline survey (n = 3494); test-retest reliability of the individual and summary environmental items was established using data collected in a separate reliability study (n = 166); and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the associations of the environmental variables with walking for transport, walking for recreation, cycling for transport and cycling for recreation, using iConnect baseline survey data (n = 2937).Results: Four summary environmental variables (traffic safety, supportive infrastructure, availability of local amenities and social order), one individual environmental item (street connectivity) and a variable encapsulating general environment quality were identified for use in further analyses. Intraclass correlations of these environmental variables ranged from 0.44 to 0.77 and were comparable to those seen in other similar scales. After adjustment for demographic and other environmental factors, walking for transport was associated with supportive infrastructure, availability of local amenities and general environment quality; walking for recreation was associated with supportive infrastructure; and cycling for transport was associated only with street connectivity. There was limited evidence of any associations between environmental attributes and cycling for recreation.Conclusion: PENS is acceptable as a short instrument for assessing perceptions of the urban environment. Previous findings that different attributes of the environment may be associated with different behaviours are confirmed. Policy action to create supportive environments may require a combination of environmental improvements to promote walking and cycling for different purposes. © 2013 Adams et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Factors

Variable Pattern loading
Many road junctions (Safety) nan
Variable Pattern loading
Many road junctions (Safety) nan

Models

Dependent variable Walking for Transport
Model type nan
Sample size 2937.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Traffic safety (Medium) 1.07 0.561
Traffic safety (High) 0.98 0.902
Supportive infrastructure (Medium) 1.35 0.018
Supportive infrastructure (High) 1.44 0.012
Local amenities (Medium) 1.71 0.01
Local amenities (High) 2.14 0
Social order (Medium) 0.77 0.072
Social order (High) 0.77 0.081
Street connectivity (Medium) 0.95 0.75
Street connectivity (High) 1.05 0.782
Sex CTRL nan
Age CTRL nan
Ethnic group CTRL nan
Education CTRL nan
Housing tenure CTRL nan
Household cars CTRL nan
Household bicycles CTRL nan
Urban/rural CTRL nan
Case study site CTRL nan
Dependent variable Walking for Transport
Model type nan
Sample size 2937.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Traffic safety (general) (Medium) 1.19 0.091
Traffic safety (general) (High) 1.16 0.185
Supportive infrastructure (general) (Medium) 1.52 0.001
Supportive infrastructure (general) (High) 1.65 0
Local amenities (general) (Medium) 1.85 0.003
Local amenities (general) (High) 2.46 0
Social order (general) (Medium) 0.81 0.146
Social order (general) (High) 0.86 0.321
Street connectivity (general) (Medium) 1.05 0.791
Street connectivity (general) (High) 1.18 0.277
General Factor (Medium) 1.91 0.003
General Factor (High) 2.32 0
Sex CTRL nan
Age CTRL nan
Ethnic group CTRL nan
Education CTRL nan
Housing tenure CTRL nan
Household cars CTRL nan
Household bicycles CTRL nan
Urban/rural CTRL nan
Case study site CTRL nan
Dependent variable Walking for Recreation
Model type nan
Sample size 2937.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Traffic safety (Medium) 0.97 0.765
Traffic safety (High) 0.82 0.089
Supportive infrastructure (Medium) 1.0 0.972
Supportive infrastructure (High) 1.47 0.005
Local amenities (Medium) 0.94 0.736
Local amenities (High) 1.06 0.754
Social order (Medium) 1.12 0.366
Social order (High) 1.06 0.675
Street connectivity (Medium) 0.89 0.48
Street connectivity (High) 0.96 0.799
Sex CTRL nan
Age CTRL nan
Ethnic group CTRL nan
Education CTRL nan
Housing tenure CTRL nan
Household cars CTRL nan
Household bicycles CTRL nan
Urban/rural CTRL nan
Case study site CTRL nan
Dependent variable Walking for Recreation
Model type nan
Sample size 2937.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Traffic safety (general) (Medium) 1.05 0.647
Traffic safety (general) (High) 1.02 0.883
Supportive infrastructure (general) (Medium) 0.99 0.913
Supportive infrastructure (general) (High) 1.41 0.004
Local amenities (general) (Medium) 0.94 0.741
Local amenities (general) (High) 1.16 0.417
Social order (general) (Medium) 1.15 0.254
Social order (general) (High) 1.12 0.391
Street connectivity (general) (Medium) 0.94 0.698
Street connectivity (general) (High) 1.03 0.836
General Factor (Medium) 0.85 0.449
General Factor (High) 1.08 0.716
Sex CTRL nan
Age CTRL nan
Ethnic group CTRL nan
Education CTRL nan
Housing tenure CTRL nan
Household cars CTRL nan
Household bicycles CTRL nan
Urban/rural CTRL nan
Case study site CTRL nan
Dependent variable Cycling for Transport
Model type nan
Sample size 2937.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Traffic safety (Medium) 0.83 0.274
Traffic safety (High) 0.89 0.53
Supportive infrastructure (Medium) 0.98 0.902
Supportive infrastructure (High) 1.09 0.693
Local amenities (Medium) 1.51 0.28
Local amenities (High) 1.69 0.156
Social order (Medium) 1.05 0.808
Social order (High) 1.32 0.202
Street connectivity (Medium) 1.93 0.042
Street connectivity (High) 1.64 0.106
Sex CTRL nan
Age CTRL nan
Ethnic group CTRL nan
Education CTRL nan
Housing tenure CTRL nan
Household cars CTRL nan
Household bicycles CTRL nan
Urban/rural CTRL nan
Case study site CTRL nan
Dependent variable Cycling for Transport
Model type nan
Sample size 2937.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Traffic safety (general) (Medium) 0.91 0.53
Traffic safety (general) (High) 1.01 0.952
Supportive infrastructure (general) (Medium) 1.04 0.821
Supportive infrastructure (general) (High) 1.19 0.341
Local amenities (general) (Medium) 1.56 0.232
Local amenities (general) (High) 1.83 0.09
Social order (general) (Medium) 1.05 0.811
Social order (general) (High) 1.33 0.181
Street connectivity (general) (Medium) 1.95 0.038
Street connectivity (general) (High) 1.69 0.082
General Factor (Medium) 0.78 0.45
General Factor (High) 0.98 0.956
Sex CTRL nan
Age CTRL nan
Ethnic group CTRL nan
Education CTRL nan
Housing tenure CTRL nan
Household cars CTRL nan
Household bicycles CTRL nan
Urban/rural CTRL nan
Case study site CTRL nan
Dependent variable Cycling for Recreation
Model type nan
Sample size 2937.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Traffic safety (Medium) 0.82 0.205
Traffic safety (High) 0.91 0.62
Supportive infrastructure (Medium) 0.68 0.031
Supportive infrastructure (High) 0.82 0.326
Local amenities (Medium) 0.98 0.955
Local amenities (High) 1.38 0.321
Social order (Medium) 1.3 0.228
Social order (High) 1.44 0.104
Street connectivity (Medium) 0.77 0.323
Street connectivity (High) 0.97 0.887
Sex CTRL nan
Age CTRL nan
Ethnic group CTRL nan
Education CTRL nan
Housing tenure CTRL nan
Household cars CTRL nan
Household bicycles CTRL nan
Urban/rural CTRL nan
Case study site CTRL nan
Dependent variable Cycling for Recreation
Model type nan
Sample size 2937.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Traffic safety (general) (Medium) 0.81 0.178
Traffic safety (general) (High) 0.97 0.851
Supportive infrastructure (general) (Medium) 0.73 0.065
Supportive infrastructure (general) (High) 0.96 0.799
Local amenities (general) (Medium) 0.9 0.736
Local amenities (general) (High) 1.25 0.473
Social order (general) (Medium) 1.28 0.251
Social order (general) (High) 1.44 0.098
Street connectivity (general) (Medium) 0.75 0.269
Street connectivity (general) (High) 0.97 0.899
General Factor (Medium) 0.54 0.046
General Factor (High) 0.61 0.116
Sex CTRL nan
Age CTRL nan
Ethnic group CTRL nan
Education CTRL nan
Housing tenure CTRL nan
Household cars CTRL nan
Household bicycles CTRL nan
Urban/rural CTRL nan
Case study site CTRL nan

The Attitudes and Travel Database is produced with support from the Center for Teaching Old Models New Tricks at Arizona State University, a University Transportation Center sponsored by the US Department of Transportation through Grant No. 69A3551747116.

sha256:a08d9e369743bf7e6d1c40d27347318209b40a7fb1543813fdcf31b898918815