Home/.../Facts and Figures/Health Beliefs, Attitudes and Well-being/Urban Development Neighbourhood Characteristics

Urban Development Neighbourhood Characteristics

Data Sources: Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System (RRFSS), 2011.

Sample: Residents 18 years and over in the KFL&A area.

Released: March 2014

Introduction

Respondents were asked about the neighbourhood in which they live. In this context, neighbourhood means the area around where people live, it may be a few blocks or a larger area. They were asked to consider many items (shown below in this Facts & Figures), and rate how well they feel their neighbourhood meet these items, or how important those items would be in a ideal neighbourhood.

A place to walk for leisure

For Figure A, respondents were asked how they would rate their neighbourhood as a place to walk for leisure; meaning to walk for fun, exercise or pleasure.

Figure A. Neighbourhood rating as a place to walk for leisure, KFL&A, 2011

Table A. Neighbourhood rating as a place to walk for leisure, KFL&A, 2011, % (95% Confidence Interval)
Rate Category	Adults, 18+	95% Confidence Interval
Excellent	50.2%	47.5, 52.9
Very good	27.8	25.4, 30.3
Good	14.0%	12.2, 16.0
Fair or poor or very poor	8.0%	6.7, 9.6

Interpretation for Figure A

In 2011, 50.2% (47.5-52.9) of residents, 18+, in KFL&A area rated their neighbourhood as excellent in terms of a place to walk for leisure.

A place to walk for reasons other than leisure

For Figure B, respondents were asked how they would rate their neighbourhood as a place to walk for reasons other than leisure can include things such as running errands, shopping, going to the library or post office.

Figure B. Neighbourhood rating as a place to walk for reasons other than leisure, KFL&A, 2011

Table B. Neighbourhood rating as a place to walk for reasons other than leisure, KFL&A, 2011, % (95% Confidence Interval)
Rate Category	Adults, 18+	95% Confidence Interval
Excellent	19.5%	17.4, 21.7
Very good	24.3%	22.0, 26.7
Good	22.0%	19.8, 24.4
Fair	10.4%	8.8, 12.2
Poor	13.8%	12.0, 15.7
Very poor	10.1%	8.5, 11.9

Interpretation for Figure B

In KFL&A in 2011, 19.5% (17.4-21.7) of residents, 18+, rated their neighbourhood as excellent in terms of a place to walk for reasons other than leisure, such as running errands, shopping, and going to the library or post office.

A place that has sidewalk or pathways

For Figure C, respondents were asked how important it would it be to have sidewalks or pathways that are connected to each other so you can walk to places in your ideal neighbourhood.

Figure C. Importance of sidewalks or pathways, KFL&A, 2011

Table C. Importance of sidewalks or pathways, KFL&A, 2011, % (95% Confidence Interval)
Rate Category	Adults, 18+	95% Confidence Interval
Very important	58.3%	55.6, 61.0
Somewhat important	22.9%	20.7, 25.3
Not very important	10.7%	9.1, 12.6
Not at all important	8.1%	6.7, 9.7

Interpretation for Figure C

In 2011, 58.3% (55.6-61.0) of residents, 18+, in KFL&A felt that in their ideal neighbourhood it would be very important to have sidewalks or pathways that are connected to each other so they can walk to places.

Importance of being able to walk to places

For Figure D, respondents were asked how important would it be to live a neighborhood where you can walk to places such as stores, restaurants, community centres, or schools.

Figure D. Importance of having places to walk to, KFL&A, 2011

Table D. Importance of having places to walk to, KFL&A, 2011, % (95% Confidence Interval)
Rate Category	Adults, 18+	95% Confidence Interval
Very important	38.2%	35.6, 40.9
Somewhat important	39.5%	36.9, 42.3
Not very important	14.9%	13.1, 17.0
Not at all important	7.3%	6.1, 8.8

Interpretation for Figure D

In 2011, 38.2% (35.6-40.9) of residents, 18+, in KFL&A felt that in their ideal neighbourhood it would be very important to be able to walk to places such as stores, restaurants, community centres, or schools.

Importance of open spaces

For Figure E, respondents were asked how important would it be to live a neighborhood with public and open spaces, such as playgrounds, parks, plazas, patios, and street corners with places to sit, and other areas that create a place where people in the community can get together and talk?

Figure E. Importance of open spaces, KFL&A, 2011

Table E. Importance of open spaces, KFL&A, 2011, % (95% Confidence Interval)
Rate Category	Adults, 18+	95% Confidence Interval
Very important	49.0%	46.3, 51.8
Somewhat important	33.7%	31.2, 36.4
Not very important	11.9%	10.3, 13.8
Not at all important	5.3%	4.2, 6.7

Interpretation for Figure E

When considering an ideal neighbourhood, 49.0% (46.3-51.8) of residents, 18+, in KFL&A felt it would be very important to have public and open spaces, such as playgrounds, parks, plazas, patios, and street corners with places to sit, and other areas that create a place where people in the community can get together and talk.

Importance of things like pedestrian street lighting or shade trees

For Figure F, respondents were asked how important would it be to have things like pedestrian street lighting, shade trees, shaded areas, and benches or places to rest in the areas where you walk in your ideal neighbourhood?

Figure F. Importance of things like pedestrian street lighting or shade trees in walking areas, KFL&A, 2011

Table F. Importance of things like pedestrian street lighting of shade trees in walking areas, KFL&A, 2011, % (95% Confidence Interval)
Rate Category	Adults, 18+
Very important	60.5% (57.8, 63.2)
Somewhat important	27.3% (24.9, 29.8)
Not very important	8.2% (6.8, 9.8)
Not at all important	4.0% (3.1, 5.2)

Rate Category	Adults, 18+	95% Confidence Interval
Very important	60.5%	57.8, 63.2
Somewhat important	27.3%	24.9, 29.8
Not very important	8.2%	6.8, 9.8
Not at all important	4.0%	3.1, 5.2

Interpretation for Figure F

When considering an ideal neighbourhood, 60.5% (57.8-63.2) of residents, 18+, in KFL&A felt it would be very important to have things such as pedestrian street lighting, shade trees, shaded areas, and benches or places to rest in the areas where they walk.

Attractive landscaping, building design, and public art

The look and feel of a neighbourhood can be affected by things such as attractive landscaping, building design, and public art. For Figure G, respondents were asked how important attractive landscaping, building design, and public art would be in an ideal neighbourhood.

Figure G. Importance of attractive landscaping, building design and public art, KFL&A, 2011

Table G. Importance of attractive landscaping, building design and art, KFL&A, 2011, % (95% Confidence Interval)
Rate Category	Adults, 18+	95% Confidence Interval
Very important	35.0%	32.5, 37.7
Somewhat important	43.4%	40.7, 46.1
Not very important	16.3%	14.3, 18.5
Not at all important	5.3%	4.2, 6.7

Rate Category	Adults, 18+	95% Confidence Interval
Very important	60.5%	57.8, 63.2
Somewhat important	27.3%	24.9, 29.8
Not very important	8.2%	6.8, 9.8
Not at all important	4.0%	3.1, 5.2

Interpretation for Figure G

When considering an ideal neighbourhood, 35.0% (32.5-37.7) of residents, 18+, in KFL&A felt that things such as attractive landscaping, building design, and public art would be very important.

Notes

The RRFSS is a random-digit-dialed telephone survey of adults aged 18 years and older, conducted by the Institute for Social Research at York University, on behalf of KFL&A Public Health.

Confidence intervals explained

Researchers look at the "confidence levels" of percentages being compared to decide if there is a statistically significant difference between percentages. A statistically significant difference means that:

the difference between two percentages is unlikely to have occurred by chance alone, and
there is a true difference or change in the percentages.

In this report, 95% confidence intervals will accompany each percentage in all figures and tables. This interval represents the range in which we are 95% confident the true percentage will fall within. In tables, the 95% confidence intervals will be written with the percentage, followed by the 95% confidence interval range in brackets (e.g., 25% (12.3, 32.4)). In figures, the 95% confidence interval is represented by vertical bars in each bar line.