Does Residents’ Satisfaction with the Neighbourhood Environment Relate to Residents’ Self-Rated Health? Evidence from Beijing
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Self-Rated Health
2.4. Independent Variables
2.5. Covariates
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Analysis
3.2. Baseline Results
3.3. Spatial Heterogeneity across Distance Buffers
3.4. Differences between Urban and Suburban
4. Discussion
4.1. The Effect of Satisfaction with Neighbourhood Green Space (NGS) and Community Green Space (CGS) on Health
4.2. Satisfaction with Neighbourhood Green Space (NGS) and Community Green Space (CGS) on Health across Spatial Dimensions
4.3. Contributions and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dadvand, P.; Bartoll, X.; Basagaña, X.; Dalmau-Bueno, A.; Martinez, D.; Ambros, A.; Cirach, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gascon, M.; Borrell, C.; et al. Green spaces and general health: Roles of mental health status, social support, and physical activity. Environ. Int. 2016, 91, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Reklaitiene, R.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Dedele, A.; Virviciute, D.; Vensloviene, J.; Tamosiunas, A.; Baceviciene, M.; Luksiene, D.; Sapranaviciute-Zabazlajeva, L.; Radisauskas, R.; et al. The relationship of green space, depressive symptoms and perceived general health in urban population. Scand. J. Public Health 2014, 42, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mytton, O.T.; Townsend, N.; Rutter, H.; Foster, C. Green space and physical activity: An observational study using Health Survey for England data. Health Place 2012, 18, 1034–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Toftager, M.; Ekholm, O.; Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.; Bentsen, P.; Grønbæk, M.; Randrup, T.B.; Kamper-Jørgensen, F. Distance to green space and physical activity: A Danish national representative survey. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Akpinar, A. How is quality of urban green spaces associated with physical activity and health? Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 16, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hillsdon, M.; Panter, J.; Foster, C.; Jones, A. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health 2006, 120, 1127–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Mental health benefits of neighbourhood green space are stronger among physically active adults in middle-to-older age: Evidence from 260,061 Australians. Prev. Med. 2013, 57, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombes, E.; Jones, A.P.; Hillsdon, M. The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. J. Soc. Sci. 2010, 70, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sugiyama, T.; Leslie, E.; Giles-Corti, B.; Owen, N. Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008, 62, e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Forns, J.; Plasència, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 4354–4379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van den Berg, M.; van Poppel, M.; van Kamp, I.; Andrusaityte, S.; Balseviciene, B.; Cirach, M.; Danileviciute, A.; Ellis, N.; Hurst, G.; Masterson, D.; et al. Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four european cities. Health Place 2016, 38, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beyer, K.; Kaltenbach, A.; Szabo, A.; Bogar, S.; Nieto, F.; Malecki, K. Exposure to neighbourhood green space and mental health: Evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 3453–3472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kondo, M.C.; Fluehr, J.M.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C.C. Urban green space and its impact on human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Alcock, I.; White, M.P.; Wheeler, B.W.; Fleming, L.E.; Depledge, M.H. Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban areas. Int. J. Environ. 2014, 48, 1247–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nutsford, D.; Pearson, A.L.; Kingham, S. An ecological study investigating the association between access to urban green space and mental health. Public Health 2013, 127, 1005–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, E.A.; Mitchell, R. Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. J. Soc. Sci. 2010, 71, 568–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pietilä, M.; Neuvonen, M.; Borodulin, K.; Korpela, K.; Sievänen, T.; Tyrväinen, L. Relationships between exposure to urban green spaces, physical activity and self-rated health. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 10, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, M.; Horwitz, P. Beyond proximity: The importance of green space useability to self-reported health. EcoHealth 2014, 11, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vries, S.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Natural environments—Healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 1717–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; De Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 587–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Greenspace, urbanity and health: Relationships in England. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007, 61, 681–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Leslie, E.; Sugiyama, T.; Ierodiaconou, D.; Kremer, P. Perceived and objectively measured greenness of neighbourhoods: Are they measuring the same thing? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruijsbroek, A.; Droomers, M.; Kruize, H.; Van Kempen, E.; Gidlow, C.; Hurst, G.; Andrusaityte, S.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Maas, J.; Hardyns, W.; et al. Does the health impact of exposure to neighbourhood green space differ between population groups? An explorative study in four European cities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hipp, J.A.; Gulwadi, G.B.; Alves, S.; Sequeira, S. The relationship between perceived greenness and perceived restorativeness of university campuses and student-reported quality of life. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 1292–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McEachan, R.R.; Yang, T.C.; Roberts, H.; Pickett, K.E.; Arseneau-Powell, D.; Gidlow, C.J.; Wright, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. Availability, use of, and satisfaction with green space, and children’s mental wellbeing at age 4 years in a multicultural, deprived, urban area: Results from the Born in Bradford cohort study. Lancet Planet. Health 2018, 2, e244–e254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruijsbroek, A.; Mohnen, S.M.; Droomers, M.; Kruize, H.; Gidlow, C.; Gražulevičiene, R.; Andrusaityte, S.; Maas, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Triguero-Mas, M.; et al. Neighbourhood green space, social environment and mental health: An examination in four European cities. Int. J. Public Health 2017, 62, 657–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fleming, C.M.; Manning, M.; Ambrey, C.L. Crime, greenspace and life satisfaction: An evaluation of the New Zealand experience. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 149, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miao, P. Deserted streets in a jammed town: The gated community in Chinese cities and its solution. J. Urban Des. 2003, 8, 45–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F.; Hu, D.; Liu, X.; Wang, R.; Yang, W.; Paulussen, J. Comprehensive urban planning and management at multiple scales based on ecological principles: A case study in Beijing, China. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World 2008, 15, 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambrey, C.; Fleming, C. Public greenspace and life satisfaction in urban Australia. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 1290–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Mitchell, G.; Dong, G.; Zhang, W. Inequality in Beijing: A spatial multilevel analysis of perceived environmental hazard and self-rated health. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2017, 107, 109–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suchman, E.A.; Phillips, B.S.; Streib, G.F. An analysis of the validity of health questionnaires. Soc. Forces 1958, 36, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrity, T.F.; Somes, G.W.; Marx, M.B. Factors influencing self-assessment of health. Soc. Sci. Med. 1978, 12, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Madureira, H.; Nunes, F.; Oliveira, J.; Madureira, T. Preferences for urban green space characteristics: A comparative study in three Portuguese cities. Environments 2018, 5, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Francis, J.; Wood, L.J.; Knuiman, M.; Giles-Corti, B. Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 74, 1570–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.W.; Buckingham, W. Is China abolishing the hukou system? China Q. 2008, 195, 582–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hajna, S.; Dasgupta, K.; Halparin, M.; Ross, N.A. Neighbourhood walkability: Field validation of geographic information system measures. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 44, e55–e59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soga, M.; Yamaura, Y.; Aikoh, T.; Shoji, Y.; Kubo, T.; Gaston, K.J. Reducing the extinction of experience: Association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 143, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekkel, E.D.; de Vries, S. Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Pojani, D. The challenge of opening up gated communities in Shanghai. J. Urban Des. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, B.C. Healthy cities: Toward worldwide health promotion. Ann. Rev. Public Health 1996, 17, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, G.C. Reproducing spaces of Chinese urbanisation: New city-based and land-centred urban transformation. Urban Stud. 2007, 44, 1827–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, F. Gated and packaged suburbia: Packaging and branding Chinese suburban residential development. Cities 2010, 27, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.T.; Lee, G.; Kwon, J.; Park, J.W.; Choi, H.; Lim, S. The association between long working hours and self-rated health. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 2014, 26, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bergefurt, L.; Kemperman, A.; van den Berg, P.; Borgers, A.; van der Waerden, P.; Oosterhuis, G.; Hommel, M. Loneliness and life satisfaction explained by public-space use and mobility patterns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variable | Description | n | Proportion (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Self-rated health (SRH) | 4291 | ||
Extremely poor health | 13 | 0.3 | |
Poor health | 119 | 2.8 | |
Neutral | 1027 | 23.9 | |
Good health | 2348 | 54.7 | |
Extremely good health | 784 | 18.3 | |
Satisfaction with NGS | |||
Strongly dissatisfied with NGS | 27 | 0.6 | |
Dissatisfied with NGS | 369 | 8.6 | |
Neutral | 1497 | 34.9 | |
Satisfied with NGS | 2036 | 47.5 | |
Strongly satisfied with NGS | 362 | 8.4 | |
Satisfaction with CGS | |||
Strongly dissatisfied with CGS | 55 | 1.3 | |
Dissatisfied with CGS | 515 | 12.0 | |
Neutral | 1622 | 37.8 | |
Satisfied with CGS | 1779 | 41.5 | |
Strongly satisfied with CGS | 320 | 7.5 | |
SES | |||
Hukou | (People without hukou registration as reference category) | 2907 | 67.8 |
Homeownership | (Non-homeowner as reference category) | 1477 | 34.4 |
Age | |||
20–29 | 1702 | 39.7 | |
30–39 | 1273 | 29.7 | |
40–49 | 693 | 16.2 | |
50–59 | 375 | 8.7 | |
60+ | 132 | 3.1 | |
Sex | (Female as the reference category) | 2170 | 50.6 |
Marital status | (Unmarried as the reference category) | 2639 | 61.5 |
Educational level | |||
Junior high school or below (reference category) | 407 | 9.5 | |
High school | 1142 | 26.6 | |
University or College | 2369 | 55.2 | |
Master’s or above | 373 | 8.7 | |
Employment status | (Part-time employment as the reference category) | 3260 | 84.4 |
Income level | (Monthly earnings of ≤10,000 yuan as the reference category) | 1613 | 37.6 |
Mobility | (Non-mover as the reference category) | 1067 | 24.9 |
Population density | Density of population in study area | 4291 | 12.5 |
Neighbourhood variables | |||
Distance to the park (km) | 4291 | 3.3 | |
Distance to the central business district (km) | 4291 | 10.6 | |
Distance to the hospital (km) | 4291 | 0.5 | |
Distance to the expressway (km) | 4291 | 3.5 | |
Distance to the subway (km) | 4291 | 1.9 |
Model 1 OR/(95% CI) | Model 2 OR/(95% CI) | Model 3 OR/(95% CI) | Model 4 OR/(95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Satisfaction with NGS | 1.254 *** | 1.246 *** | ||
[1.142, 1.378] | [1.133, 1.369] | |||
Satisfaction with CGS | 1.119 ** | 1.094 ** | ||
[1.025, 1.221] | [1.001, 1.195] | |||
Hukou | 0.973 | 0.910 | 1.094 | |
[0.845, 1.121] | [0.792, 1.046] | [0.948, 1.262] | ||
Homeownership | 1.070 | 1.131 * | 1.013 | |
[0.927, 1.234] | [0.984, 1.300] | [0.878, 1.170] | ||
Age | 0.946 | 0.966 | 0.747 *** | |
[0.882, 1.014] | [0.902, 1.034] | [0.696, 0.803] | ||
Sex | 0.952 | 0.927 | 0.907 | |
[0.840, 1.077] | [0.821, 1.047] | [0.800, 1.028] | ||
Marital status | 0.979 | 1.067 | 0.936 | |
[0.854, 1.123] | [0.932, 1.221] | [0.814, 1.077] | ||
Junior high school and below | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
[1.000, 1.000] | [1.000, 1.000] | [1.000, 1.000] | ||
High school | 0.884 | 1.029 | 0.999 | |
[0.706, 1.108] | [0.825, 1.283] | [0.794, 1.257] | ||
University or College | 1.022 | 1.172 | 1.173 | |
[0.817, 1.280] | [0.940, 1.462] | [0.932, 1.478] | ||
Master or above | 1.343 * | 1.355 ** | 1.190 | |
[0.995, 1.813] | [1.012, 1.814] | [0.876, 1.616] | ||
Employment status | 0.977 | 1.037 | 0.839 ** | |
[0.822, 1.160] | [0.875, 1.228] | [0.704, 1.000] | ||
Income (>10,000 yuan) | 1.044 | 1.058 | 1.511 *** | |
[0.919, 1.185] | [0.933, 1.198] | [1.327, 1.720] | ||
Mobility | 0.935 | 0.925 | 0.979 | |
[0.810, 1.080] | [0.803, 1.066] | [0.845, 1.135] | ||
Population density | 0.999 | 1.004 | 1.000 | |
[0.994, 1.004] | [0.999, 1.008] | [0.994, 1.006] | ||
Distance to park | 0.965 ** | |||
[0.932, 1.000] | ||||
Distance to central business district | 1.032 *** | |||
[1.017, 1.048] | ||||
Distance to hospital | 1.168 * | |||
[0.974, 1.400] | ||||
Distance to expressway | 0.960 ** | |||
[0.930, 0.992] | ||||
Distance to subway | 1.008 | |||
[0.965, 1.052] | ||||
Thresholds for cumulative logit | ||||
First | 0.004 *** | 0.011 *** | 0.010 *** | 0.004 *** |
[0.002, 0.009] | [0.005, 0.023] | [0.005, 0.019] | [0.002, 0.010] | |
Second | 0.070 *** | 0.136 *** | 0.103 *** | 0.043 *** |
[0.035, 0.141] | [0.069, 0.268] | [0.069, 0.153] | [0.019, 0.096] | |
Third | 0.626 | 1.042 | 1.261 | 0.551 |
[0.314, 1.248] | [0.531,2.044] | [0.873, 1.821] | [0.249, 1.219] | |
Fourth | 10.749 *** | 14.441 *** | 17.059 *** | 8.159 *** |
[5.366,21.532] | [7.309,28.532] | [11.682,24.912] | [3.681, 18.084] | |
Variance in district level | 1.457 ** | 1.307 ** | 1.560 ** | 1.533 ** |
[1.023, 2.075] | [1.006, 1.700] | [1.102, 2.209] | [1.068, 2.199] | |
Variance in jiedao level | 1.480 ** | 1.261 *** | 1.049 | 1.077 |
[1.098, 1.997] | [1.066, 1.491] | [0.972, 1.131] | [0.974, 1.190] | |
n | 4283.000 | 4283.000 | 4283.000 | 4283.000 |
AIC | 9725.596 | 1.0 × 10 4 | 9272.572 | 9118.103 |
BIC | 9840.120 | 1.0 × 10 4 | 9323.471 | 9277.163 |
chi2 | 24.370 | 32.695 | 61.605 | 243.890 |
p | 0.018 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
<500 m OR/(95% CI) | 500–1000 m OR/(95% CI) | 1000–2000 m OR/(95% CI) | 2000–3000 m OR/(95% CI) | 3000–4000 m OR/(95% CI) | >4000 m OR/(95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Satisfaction with NGS | 1.629 * | 1.160 | 1.116 | 1.393 *** | 1.629 *** | 1.187 * |
[0.959, 2.765] | [0.843, 1.595] | [0.936, 1.330] | [1.098, 1.767] | [1.248, 2.127] | [0.987, 1.428] | |
Satisfaction with CGS | 1.005 | 0.924 | 1.042 | 1.165 | 0.932 | 1.344 *** |
[0.589, 1.713] | [0.686, 1.245] | [0.889, 1.222] | [0.927, 1.464] | [0.725, 1.198] | [1.130, 1.598] | |
Hukou | 1.440 | 1.098 | 0.845 | 1.285 | 0.911 | 1.329 ** |
[0.612,3.387] | [0.676, 1.782] | [0.630, 1.132] | [0.888, 1.860] | [0.623, 1.334] | [1.026, 1.721] | |
Homeownership | 1.026 | 0.768 | 1.101 | 0.906 | 1.126 | 1.029 |
[0.472, 2.230] | [0.499, 1.181] | [0.838, 1.447] | [0.628, 1.309] | [0.749, 1.691] | [0.774, 1.368] | |
Age | 0.757 | 0.601 *** | 0.744 *** | 0.846 * | 0.537 *** | 0.837 ** |
[0.522, 1.098] | [0.482, 0.749] | [0.652, 0.850] | [0.707, 1.012] | [0.434, 0.665] | [0.724, 0.969] | |
Sex | 1.302 | 0.822 | 0.875 | 1.028 | 0.979 | 0.849 |
[0.640, 2.649] | [0.560, 1.207] | [0.690, 1.110] | [0.745, 1.419] | [0.689, 1.391] | [0.666, 1.083] | |
Marital status | 0.884 | 0.720 | 1.072 | 1.052 | 0.605** | 1.026 |
[0.476, 1.643] | [0.472, 1.099] | [0.815, 1.410] | [0.763, 1.450] | [0.398, 0.920] | [0.765, 1.376] | |
Junior high school and below | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
[1.000, 1.000] | [1.000, 1.000] | [1.000, 1.000] | [1.000, 1.000] | [1.000, 1.000] | [1.000, 1.000] | |
High school | 1.046 | 0.878 | 0.820 | 1.463 | 0.715 | 1.130 |
[0.265,4.119] | [0.411, 1.874] | [0.501, 1.341] | [0.847, 2.526] | [0.379, 1.348] | [0.740, 1.727] | |
University or College | 1.213 | 1.021 | 1.023 | 2.228 *** | 0.705 | 1.096 |
[0.304,4.846] | [0.471, 2.212] | [0.625, 1.675] | [1.269,3.910] | [0.374, 1.329] | [0.717, 1.677] | |
Master or above | 0.372 | 0.817 | 1.250 | 2.161 ** | 1.062 | 0.881 |
[0.066, 2.093] | [0.279, 2.388] | [0.673, 2.324] | [1.033,4.518] | [0.473, 2.387] | [0.485, 1.599] | |
Employment status | 1.280 | 0.704 | 0.968 | 0.627 ** | 0.671 | 0.881 |
[0.488,3.354] | [0.413, 1.200] | [0.695, 1.348] | [0.406, 0.969] | [0.403, 1.118] | [0.624, 1.243] | |
Income (>10,000 yuan) | 1.531 | 1.494 * | 1.171 | 1.832 *** | 1.421 * | 1.927 *** |
[0.658,3.566] | [0.996, 2.243] | [0.923, 1.486] | [1.320, 2.541] | [0.981, 2.056] | [1.482, 2.507] | |
Mobility | 0.642 | 1.224 | 1.060 | 1.100 | 0.917 | 0.855 |
[0.271, 1.518] | [0.743, 2.018] | [0.773, 1.454] | [0.754, 1.604] | [0.619, 1.358] | [0.661, 1.106] | |
Population density | 1.096 *** | 1.004 | 0.991 * | 1.009 | 1.008 | 0.981 |
[1.025, 1.172] | [0.989, 1.020] | [0.981, 1.001] | [0.996, 1.022] | [0.993, 1.024] | [0.937, 1.027] | |
Distance to park | 0.019 *** | 2.174 | 0.817 | 1.394 | 0.900 | 0.892 *** |
[0.001, 0.383] | [0.580,8.148] | [0.534, 1.251] | [0.819, 2.372] | [0.469, 1.728] | [0.820, 0.969] | |
Distance to central business district | 1.142 *** | 0.977 | 1.034 ** | 1.024 | 1.039 | 1.070 *** |
[1.059, 1.231] | [0.936, 1.020] | [1.003, 1.065] | [0.990, 1.060] | [0.985, 1.096] | [1.024, 1.119] | |
Distance to hospital | 10.838 ** | 1.658 | 1.296 | 1.208 | 1.272 | 1.217 * |
[1.542,76.183] | [0.583,4.714] | [0.668, 2.518] | [0.587, 2.487] | [0.686, 2.359] | [0.964, 1.537] | |
Distance to expressway | 0.882 | 1.196 ** | 0.959 | 0.978 | 0.868 ** | 0.947 * |
[0.640, 1.215] | [1.038, 1.379] | [0.881, 1.045] | [0.876, 1.091] | [0.776, 0.971] | [0.894, 1.003] | |
Distance to subway | 0.961 | 0.805 | 0.869 | 1.129 | 1.006 | 1.013 |
[0.489, 1.889] | [0.609, 1.063] | [0.728, 1.037] | [0.949, 1.344] | [0.858, 1.179] | [0.959, 1.071] | |
Thresholds for cumulative logit | ||||||
First | 0.313 | 0.005 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.200 | 0.000 *** | 0.011 *** |
[0.003,35.966] | [0.000, 0.081] | [0.000, 0.007] | [0.019, 2.143] | [0.000, 0.009] | [0.002, 0.068] | |
Second | 5.608 | 0.123 | 0.018 *** | 0.841 | 0.003 *** | 0.113 *** |
[0.052,604.788] | [0.008, 1.844] | [0.003, 0.110] | [0.087,8.166] | [0.000, 0.065] | [0.024, 0.536] | |
Third | 75.085 * | 1.869 | 0.195 * | 10.972 ** | 0.047 ** | 1.413 |
[0.667,8455.775] | [0.126, 27.690] | [0.033, 1.142] | [1.145, 105.157] | [0.002, 0.995] | [0.306,6.529] | |
Fourth | 1.000 | 1.059 | 1.088 | 1.002 | 1.051 | 1.595 |
[1.000, 1.000] | [0.934, 1.201] | [0.810, 1.460] | [0.885, 1.136] | [0.881, 1.253] | [0.739,3.445] | |
Variance in district level | 1.072 | 1.000 | 1.111 | 1.029 | 1.001 | 1.086 |
[0.772, 1.487] | [1.000, 1.000] | [0.921, 1.342] | [0.912, 1.162] | [0.845, 1.187] | [0.853, 1.382] | |
Variance in jiedao level | 2.848 | 161.854 *** | 0.850 | 24.203 *** | ||
[0.486, 16.693] | [16.451, 1592.395] | [0.041, 17.802] | [5.177, 113.144] | |||
n | 146.000 | 457.000 | 1215.000 | 705.000 | 579.000 | 1181.000 |
AIC | 344.732 | 970.092 | 2645.086 | 1547.506 | 1198.907 | 2514.828 |
BIC | 413.355 | 1064.960 | 2772.648 | 1661.461 | 1307.940 | 2641.680 |
p | 0.022 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Urban OR/(95% CI) | Suburban OR/(95% CI) | |
---|---|---|
Satisfaction with NGS | 1.261 *** | 1.230 *** |
[1.081, 1.470] | [1.088, 1.390] | |
Satisfaction with CGS | 1.034 | 1.144 ** |
[0.899, 1.191] | [1.019, 1.285] | |
Hukou | 0.741 ** | 1.335 *** |
[0.581, 0.946] | [1.114, 1.601] | |
Homeownership | 1.045 | 1.019 |
[0.829, 1.317] | [0.846, 1.226] | |
Age | 0.670 *** | 0.794 *** |
[0.597, 0.752] | [0.723, 0.871] | |
Sex | 0.920 | 0.875 |
[0.752, 1.126] | [0.744, 1.029] | |
Marital status | 0.921 | 0.936 |
[0.739, 1.147] | [0.778, 1.126] | |
Junior high school and below | 1.000 | 1.000 |
[1.000, 1.000] | [1.000, 1.000] | |
High school | 0.962 | 0.990 |
[0.656, 1.412] | [0.740, 1.326] | |
University or College | 1.021 | 1.216 |
[0.691, 1.509] | [0.911, 1.625] | |
Master or above | 1.036 | 1.199 |
[0.619, 1.733] | [0.814, 1.766] | |
Employment status | 0.755 * | 0.898 |
[0.561, 1.015] | [0.719, 1.121] | |
Income (>10, 000 yuan) | 1.431 *** | 1.609 *** |
[1.169, 1.753] | [1.354, 1.913] | |
Mobility | 0.901 | 1.020 |
[0.704, 1.154] | [0.847, 1.227] | |
Population density | 0.999 | 1.002 |
[0.991, 1.008] | [0.993, 1.011] | |
Distance to park | 1.072 | 0.950 *** |
[0.946, 1.215] | [0.914, 0.987] | |
Distance to central business district | 1.090 *** | 1.022 |
[1.031, 1.152] | [0.996, 1.050] | |
Distance to hospital | 1.167 | 1.266 ** |
[0.637, 2.137] | [1.041, 1.540] | |
Distance to expressway | 1.092 * | 0.956 ** |
[0.998, 1.194] | [0.916, 0.998] | |
Distance to subway | 0.749 *** | 1.034 |
[0.628, 0.893] | [0.987, 1.083] | |
Thresholds for cumulative logit | ||
First | 0.002 *** | 0.007 *** |
[0.000, 0.008] | [0.002, 0.024] | |
Second | 0.019 *** | 0.070 *** |
[0.005, 0.076] | [0.024, 0.204] | |
Third | 0.229 ** | 0.981 |
[0.058, 0.897] | [0.345, 2.792] | |
Fourth | 3.476 * | 15.030 *** |
[0.891, 13.558] | [5.255,42.987] | |
Variance in district level | 1.123 | 1.660 ** |
[0.777, 1.625] | [1.007, 2.738] | |
Variance in jiedao level | 1.004 | 1.177 * |
[0.976, 1.033] | [0.992, 1.397] | |
n | 1695.000 | 2588.000 |
AIC | 3651.699 | 5471.585 |
BIC | 3787.585 | 5618.051 |
chi2 | 130.457 | 145.427 |
p | 0.000 | 0.000 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, Y.; Stephens, M.; Jones, C.A. Does Residents’ Satisfaction with the Neighbourhood Environment Relate to Residents’ Self-Rated Health? Evidence from Beijing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245051
Chen Y, Stephens M, Jones CA. Does Residents’ Satisfaction with the Neighbourhood Environment Relate to Residents’ Self-Rated Health? Evidence from Beijing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(24):5051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245051
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Yiyi, Mark Stephens, and Colin A. Jones. 2019. "Does Residents’ Satisfaction with the Neighbourhood Environment Relate to Residents’ Self-Rated Health? Evidence from Beijing" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 24: 5051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245051