Neighbourhood walkability, road density and socio-economic status in Sydney, Australia

Table 4 WRD and walkability tertiles: relative prevalence^a for population and by IRSD quintiles^b, 2007

Measure		All CCDs ^c (100 %)	Low WRD	Low Walk	Mid WRD	Mid Walk	High WRD	High Walk	Sweet -Low WRD -High Walk	Sour -High WRD -Low Walk	High -High WRD -High Walk	Low -Low WRD -Low Walk
Proportion of CCD’s (%)		100	33.0	36.3	33.5	31.4	33.5	32.3	4.2	4.5	19.6	20.3
Population (Relative prevalence)		1.00	1.04	1.15	1.07	1.03	0.90	0.80	0.76	1.15	0.80	1.11
IRSD Category	1 low SES	1.00	0.92	0.76	1.18	1.32	0.90	0.96	1.06	0.85	0.77	0.72
	2	1.00	0.82	0.79	1.08	1.24	1.09	1.00	0.85	1.16	1.04	0.63
	3	1.00	0.89	0.86	1.01	1.10	1.10	1.07	0.81	0.98	1.15	0.82
	4	1.00	0.86	1.00	0.96	0.76	1.18	1.23	1.18	1.16	1.34	0.85
	5 high SES	1.00	1.51	1.59	0.77	0.59	0.72	0.74	1.10	0.85	0.70	1.97

^aValues in each column represent the relative prevalence of IRSD within each category normalised to 1.0 (being equal to the overall prevalence of IRSD category across the Sydney metropolitan area). That is, a value of 1.51 for low WRD in the highest (5) SES category represents a 51 % higher than expected prevalence of low WRD CCDs compared with low WRD across all SES categories/all CCDs. A value of 1.18 for sweet-spot CCDs in the second-highest (4) SES category represents a 18 % higher than expected prevalence of sweet-spot CCDs compared with sweet-spots across all SES categories/all CCDs. A value of 0.76 for low walkability in the lowest (1) SES category represents a 24 % lower than expected prevalence of low walkability CCDs compared with low walkability across all SES categories/all CCDs
^bIRSD-Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census. IRSD is used as the measure of area-based SES in this analysis
^cCCD-Census Collector District-smallest geographical unit for which walkability and weighted road density (WRD) were calculated

ISSN: 1476-069X