Table 3 Assessment of the area’s problems and the effects of the improvements
Problems in the area | Total % (CI-95 %) | Deprivation levela | Sex | Age | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
High | Low | p | Men | Women | p | 18–44 | 45–79 | p | ||
Lack of recreational areas | 68.7 % (63.4–73.9) | 60 % | 72 % | 0.03 | 69.1 % | 68.2 % | N S | 70.8 % | 66.4 % | NS |
Walking difficulty | 37.5 % (31.9–43.0) | 37 % | 37.8 % | NS | 32.1 % | 43 % | 0.05 | 38.6 % | 36.4 % | NS |
Use of metro | 39.3 % (33.7–44.7) | 28 % | 46 % | 0.003 | 38 % | 40.5 % | NS | 40.4 % | 38.1 % | NS |
Lack of emblematic locations | 35.3 % (29.9–40.7) | 30 % | 38 % | NS | 30 % | 40.5 % | 0.05 | 32.7 % | 38.1 % | NS |
Potential effect attributed to recommended improvement: pedestrian walkway | ||||||||||
Increases physical activity | 78.4 % (73.7–83.1) | 73 % | 81 % | 0.06 | 75 % | 81.7 % | NS | 84 % | 72.4 % | 0.01 |
Increases use of the metro | 64 % (58.5–69) | 56 % | 68 % | 0.02 | 63.4 % | 64.5 % | NS | 70.6 % | 56.9 % | 0.01 |
Improves sociability | 81.6 % (77.2–86) | 87 % | 79 % | NS | 79.6 % | 83.6 % | NS | 86.5 % | 76.4 % | 0.01 |
Increases leisure opportunities | 63.5 % (58.1–69) | 56 % | 67 % | 0.04 | 61.6 % | 65.4 % | NS | 67.1 % | 59.7 % | NS |
Increases attractiveness of area | 90.2 % (86.9–93.6) | 98 % | 86 % | 0.001 | 91.1 % | 89.4 % | NS | 92.9 % | 87.3 % | NS |