The influence of socio-demographic and neighborhood characteristics on residents’ safety perception of active mobility in Accra, Ghana

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the model variables.

Variable	Count	Percent	Variable	Count	Percent
Safety perception			4–7	749	58.8%
Unsafe	51	4.0%	8–12	122	9.6%
Somewhat unsafe	183	14.4%	13 or higher	63	4.9%
Somewhat safe	552	43.4%	Unknown	3	0.2%
Very safe	487	38.3%	Income level (Cedis^*)
Residence duration			<100	131	10.3%
Less than 1 year	115	9.1%	100–1000	442	34.7%
1–5 years	341	26.9%	1001–5000	460	36.1%
5- 10years	217	17.1%	5001–10,000	34	2.7%
more than 10 years	594	46.9%	10,001 or higher	5	0.4%
Gender			Unknown	201	15.8%
Male	601	47.2%	Living with children
Female	622	48.9%	Yes	659	51.8%
Unknown	50	3.9%	No	481	37.8%
Age			sometimes	118	9.3%
Less than 18	61	4.8%	Unknown	15	1.2%
18–35 yrs	651	51.1%	Walking duration to the nearest bus stop
36–50 yrs	430	33.8%	<15 mins	552	43.4%
51–70 yrs	92	7.2%	15–30 mins	455	35.7%
71–85 yrs	5	0.4%	31–45 mins	146	11.5%
More than 85 yrs	2	0.2%	46–60 mins	74	5.8%
Unknown	32	2.5%	>60 mins	16	1.3%
Level of Education			Unknown	30	2.4%
No formal education	76	6.0%	Neighborhood traffic rating
Primary	114	9.0%	Not too much	346	27.2%
secondary	331	26.0%	Some traffic during the day	689	54.1%
Diploma	226	17.8%	Too much traffic all the time	211	16.6%
Bachelor	414	32.5%	Unknown	27	2.1%
Postgraduate	79	6.2%	Neighborhood planning
Unknown	33	2.6%	Unplanned	208	16.3%
Employment status			Poorly planned	270	21.2%
Employed	560	44.0%	Well planned	776	61.0%
Unemployed	86	6.8%	Unknown	19	1.5%
Student	336	26.4%	Building proximity
Retired	33	2.6%	Not close	667	52.6%
Unknown	258	20.3%	Somewhat close	398	31.4%
Household size			Very close	202	15.9%
1–3	336	26.4%	Unknown	2	0.2%

*1.0 Cedi = approximately $0.087.

Figure 1. Safety perception by gender.

Figure 2. (a) safety perception by age group, (b) safety perception by walking duration to the bus stop.

Figure 3. (a) safety perception by employment status, (b) safety perception by net monthly income.

Figure 4. Pseudo elasticities of socio-demographic factors in the model.

Table 2. Model estimates.

	Variable	$\beta$	t-value	Pseudo-elasticities
Category	Constant	2.787	12.69	Unsafe	Some what Unsafe	Some what Safe	Very Safe
Random parameters
Employment status	Employed	0.441	3.52	−46.7%	−39.4%	−10.2%	25.1%
Road traffic rating	Not too much traffic	0.764	4.73	−71.2%	−62.1%	−20.8%	44.5%
Standard deviation of random parameters
Employment status	Employed	0.884	12.23
Neighborhood traffic	Not too much	0.262	6.78
Socio-demographic factors
Residence duration	5–10 years	−0.356	−2.38	43.0%	34.7%	6.5%	−19.4%
Age	35–50 years old	0.354	2.70	−36.3%	−31.0%	−8.6%	20.3%
Education level	Secondary	0.246	1.84	−25.1%	−21.5%	−6.0%	14.1%
Net monthly income (Cedis)	1001–5000	−0.669	−5.32	79.9%	64.2%	12.6%	−36.6%
	5001–10,000	−0.844	−2.13	134.8%	94.7%	6.0%	−41.1%
Household size	4–7	0.240	1.95	−26.4%	−22.1%	−5.2%	13.5%
	8–12	−0.344	−1.77	42.3%	33.9%	6.0%	−18.6%
Living with children	Yes	0.263	2.23	−28.5%	−23.9%	−5.9%	14.8%
Walking duration to the nearest bus stop	31–45 minutes	−0.451	−2.57	57.6%	45.4%	7.3%	−24.1%
	46–60 minutes	−0.562	−2.07	77.2%	58.8%	7.4%	−29.2%
Neighborhood factors
Road traffic rating	Some daily traffic	0.433	3.10	−47.8%	−39.8%	−9.4%	24.3%
Neighborhood planning	Unplanned	−0.275	−1.97	32.4%	26.4%	5.3%	−15.1%
Housing proximity	Not close	0.250	2.10	−27.1%	−22.8%	−5.6%	14.1%
	Threshold parameters
	Mu (01)	1.821	13.13
	Mu (02)	4.080	25.85
	Number of observations	1273

Data availability statement

The study data and relevant survey questions will be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.