| Literature DB >> 31345233 |
Ruoyu Wang1,2, Ye Liu3,4, Yi Lu5, Yuan Yuan1,2, Jinbao Zhang1,2, Penghua Liu1,2, Yao Yao6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neighbourhood environment characteristics have been found to be associated with residents' willingness to conduct physical activity (PA). Traditional methods to assess perceived neighbourhood environment characteristics are often subjective, costly, and time-consuming, and can be applied only on a small scale. Recent developments in deep learning algorithms and the recent availability of street view images enable researchers to assess multiple aspects of neighbourhood environment perceptions more efficiently on a large scale. This study aims to examine the relationship between each of six neighbourhood environment perceptual indicators-namely, wealthy, safe, lively, depressing, boring and beautiful-and residents' time spent on PA in Guangzhou, China.Entities:
Keywords: Deep learning; Neighbourhood perception; Physical activity (PA); Tencent Street View (TSV)
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31345233 PMCID: PMC6659285 DOI: 10.1186/s12942-019-0182-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Fig. 1Workflow of predicting human perceptions of neighbourhood environments
Descriptive statistics for variables
| Variables | Proportion/mean (SD) or % |
|---|---|
| Outcomes | |
| Total PA time (min) | 198.7 (206.3) |
| Light PA time (min) | 101.7 (73.0) |
| Moderate PA time (min) | 44.6 (168.8) |
| Vigorous PA time (min) | 52.5 (112.0) |
| Predictors | |
| Neighbourhood perception | |
| Wealthy (0–10) | 4.9 (neighbourhood level: 0.4; point level: 0.4; image level: 0.3) |
| Safe (0–10) | 4.7 (neighbourhood level: 0.4; point level: 0.4; image level: 0.4) |
| Lively (0–10) | 4.8 (neighbourhood level: 0.4; point level: 0.4; image level: 0.4) |
| Depressing (0–10) | 6.3 (neighbourhood level: 0.4; point level: 0.3; image level: 0.3) |
| Boring (0–10) | 5.7 (neighbourhood level: 0.2; point level: 0.2; image level: 0.2) |
| Beautiful (0–10) | 3.9 (neighbourhood level: 0.3; point level: 0.3; image level: 0.3) |
| Covariates | |
| Gender (%) | |
| Male | 49.3 |
| Female | 50.7 |
| Age (years) | 42.5 (13.8) |
| Marital status (%) | |
| Single, divorced, and widowed | 17.8 |
| Married | 82.2 |
| Education (%) | |
| Primary school or below | 2.8 |
| High school | 51.3 |
| College and above | 45.9 |
| Household income (CNY/month) | |
| 10,000 or below | 8.0 |
| 10,000–20,000 | 71.0 |
| 20,000–40,000 | 15.2 |
| 40,000 or above | 5.8 |
| Household size (persons) | 3.3 (0.9) |
| Length of staying in the neighbourhood (years) | 13.6 (11.3) |
| Functional restriction (%) | |
| Yes | 4.1 |
| No | 95.9 |
The association between neighbourhood perception and total PA time
| Model 1 | |
|---|---|
| Coef. (SE) | |
| Fixed part | |
| Neighbourhood perception | |
| Wealthy | 0.937 (1.024) |
| Safe | 1.495*** (0.558) |
| Lively | 1.635** (0.789) |
| Depressing | − 1.232** (0.588) |
| Boring | − 1.227** (0.603) |
| Beautiful | 1.009** (0.404) |
| Male (ref: female) | 0.064** (0.028) |
| Age | 0.004*** (0.002) |
| Married (ref. = Single, divorced and widowed) | − 0.023 (0.047) |
| Education (ref: primary school or below) | |
| High school | − 0.049 (0.092) |
| College and above | − 0.022 (0.099) |
| Household income (ref: 10,000 CNY or below) | |
| 10,000–20,000 | 0.104* (0.057) |
| 20,000–40,000 | 0.159** (0.069) |
| 40,000 or above | 0.022 (0.079) |
| Household size | − 0.026 (0.019) |
| Length of staying in the neighbourhood | 0.001 (0.002) |
| Functional restricted (ref: not restricted) | − 0.056 (0.074) |
| Constant | 1.252 (6.487) |
| Random part | |
| Var (neighbourhoods) | 0.022 |
| Var (Individuals) | 0.141 |
| Number of individuals | 808 |
| Number of neighbourhoods | 35 |
| Log likelihood | − 375.623 |
| AIC | 791.246 |
Coef. coefficient, SE standard error
Significance levels: “*” p < 0.100, “**” p < 0.050, “***” p < 0.010
Robustness tests
| Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. (SE) | Coef. (SE) | Coef. (SE) | |
| Wealthy | 0.854 (1.025) | 0.966 (1.033) | 1.189 (0.977) |
| Safety | 1.343** (0.558) | 1.483** (0.663) | 1.585** (0.647) |
| Lively | 1.445** (0.689) | 1.372** (0.660) | 1.688** (0.815) |
| Depressing | − 1.181** (0.523) | − 1.239** (0.528) | − 1.231** (0.608) |
| Boring | − 1.277** (0.608) | − 1.209** (0.601) | − 1.496** (0.747) |
| Beautiful | 1.229** (0.497) | 1.297** (0.481) | 1.166** (0.499) |
| Number of observations | 769 | 763 | 808 |
Coef. coefficient, SE standard error
Significance levels: “*” p < 0.100, “**”, p < 0.050, “***” p < 0.010. All models were adjusted for individual-level covariates. Model 2 excluded people who had functional restrictions, Model 3 excluded people aged > 70. Model 4 used a circular buffer with a radius of 1.5 km
The association between neighbourhood perceptions and time spent on different intensity levels of PA
| Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. (SE) | Coef. (SE) | Coef. (SE) | |
| Wealthy | 0.160 (2.043) | 2.186 (2.563) | 1.405 (2.108) |
| Safety | 2.183** (1.104) | 3.016** (1.454) | 1.665** (0.751) |
| Lively | 0.789 (1.104) | 1.761 (1.977) | 2.377** (1.624) |
| Depressing | − 2.202** (1.075) | − 2.712** (1.307) | − 1.148** (0.508) |
| Boring | − 0.079 (1.208) | − 0.911 (1.525) | − 1.722** (0.858) |
| Beautiful | 0.378 (0.564) | 2.227** (1.017) | 1.734*** (0.526) |
| Number of observations | 808 | 808 | 808 |
Coef. coefficient, SE standard error
Significance levels: “*” p < 0.100, “**”, p < 0.050, “***” p < 0.010. All models were adjusted for individual-level covariates. The outcome variables for Models 5, 6 and 7 were light PA time, moderate PA time and vigorous PA time, respectively