Question

英语帮助

3. Results
Descriptive statistics for each of the variables used in our multivariate analysis are presented in Table 2 (n¼ 410 respondents, 45 blocks). The median age of study respondents was 45 years (range 18e94 years). The respondent populationwas mostly White non-Hispanic, homeowners, and highly educated with 53% of respondents being college graduates. The majority of respondents reported participating in some type gardening (56%), which included community gardening, backyard gardening, container gardening, or gardening in a neighbor’s garden.
Table 3 presents correlation coefficients and results from the multi-level models. All individual-level variables were significantly correlated with the outcome variable of individual neighborhood attachment.
Our models demonstrate that individual covariates, such as length of residency were significantly associated with neighborhood attachment levels, and this effect remained relatively constant across models. However, home ownership was significantly related to neighborhood attachment in models AeD only. Race and ethnicity and individual-level education were nonsignificant in our multivariate models.
Residents of block-groups with higher proportions of college graduates reported greater neighborhood attachment (model B), even after adjusting for individual educational level. Individuals who perceived more incivilities had significantly lower levels of neighborhood attachment (model C) whilst aggregate block-group level incivilities were not related to neighborhood attachment after adjusting for individual-level perceived incivilities. Residents who reported greater perceived safety reported significantly higher levels of attachment (model D), but crime rate was not associated with neighborhood attachment in this analysis after adjusting for individual-level perceived safety. Individual collective efficacy was statistically and positively associated with neighborhood attachment (model E), while aggregate collective efficacy was not associated, after adjusting for individual-level collective efficacy. Length of residence in the neighborhood and self-reports of collective efficacy were significantly associated with neighborhood attachment levels (model F).
In our final model G, years of residence in the neighborhood remained significantly associated with neighborhood attachment, as did collective efficacy. Community and home gardening were positively associated with higher levels of neighborhood attachment
when compared to people who did not garden. In final model H, years of residence in the neighborhood remained significantly associated with neighborhood attachment, as did collective efficacy. Participation in any type of gardening was significantly associated with higher levels of neighborhood attachment. No further decrease in variance among block-groups was observed in these models, suggesting that additional contextual factors may be important in explaining neighborhood attachment.

Answer 1

3.结论
在本次多变量分析中所用的每个变量的统计描述被列于表2。受访者的年龄中值为45岁（最小年龄为18岁，最大为94岁）。受访人群大部分是白种非西班牙人的户主，其中53%受过高等教育。受访者的大部分（56%）声称自己参加过园艺劳动，他们参加的园艺劳动包括：社区园艺、后花园园艺、盆罐园艺或是帮助邻居进行园艺劳动。
表3描述了本次多变量实验的结果以及各变量的相关系数。所有个人层次的变量都与 个人的邻里依恋变量结果有着显著的联系。
本次模拟说明，个体情况的不同，比如在当地的居住时间，与个人的邻里依恋程度有密切关系，并且这一结果（就是指 个人情况不同与邻里依恋程度密切相关 这一结果）在整个模拟过程中趋于一致。然而，对住房的占有情况只是在AeD模拟中 与邻里依恋有着明显影响。本次多变量模拟中，种族以及受教育程度对邻里依恋的影响并不明显。
那些高学历者居多的街区的居民整体都有着更高程度的邻里依恋，即使从个人层面看也是这样（模拟B）（意思是，假如我和小妹都是一样学历，但是小妹所在街区高学历的多，我所在街区高学历的少，那么小妹的邻里依恋比我高。这一逻辑在下面还要提到）。言行粗野之人的邻里依恋感情要明显的偏低（模拟C），同时整个街区的言行粗野程度并不能表明街区每个居民的邻里依恋程度的高低（但是整个街区的受教育程度可以表示整个街区的邻里依恋程度）。对当地有安全感的人明显的有着更高的邻里依恋，但是考虑到个人层面，犯嘴（谐音）率对邻里依恋的影响不大（逻辑同上）。个人对集体活动的参与度对邻里依恋有着积极的影响，但所居住街区的参与度平均值 对个人邻里依恋影响不大（比如小妹所在街区都普遍参与活动，我的不是，但是并不能说明小妹邻里依恋比我的高。后面这几条都是与教育那条相反的）。在当地居住的时间对邻里依恋有着明显影响。

Answer 2

3。结果
就在我们的多元分析中使用的每个变量的描述统计如表2（不适用¼ 410受访者中，45）。受访者的学习中平均年龄为45岁（18-94岁）。受访人大多数是非西班牙裔白人，房主，高达53％的受访者是接受大学教育的毕业生。大部分受访者报告了某种类型的园艺（56％），其中包括社区园林，庭院园艺，园艺容器，或在邻居的花园园艺参加。
表三列出了多级模型相关系数和结果。所有个别级别的变量有显着的个别邻里附件结果变量相关。
我们的模型表明，个体变项，如居住长度均显着相关的邻里附着水平，而这一影响整个模型保持相对恒定。然而，自置居所附近有明显的关系在急症室的型号附件。种族和民族以及个人层面的教育是不显着在我们的多元模式。
块与高比例的大学毕业生群体更大附近的居民报告的附件，即使个别教育程度调整（B型）。个人认为谁更incivilities了居委会的附件（C型），而总块组级别incivilities后不相关个体层次的感知incivilities调整到邻近的附件非常低的水平。居民认为谁更安全报告报告附件（模型D）显着较高水平，但并没有相关的罪案率在这一分析与邻里附件后个体感知的安全水平进行调整。个人集体效能统计学，积极与居委会的附件（模型E），关联而聚集集体效能无关，后个人层面的集体效能调整。在居民区和自我效能报告集体居住时间的长短有显着相关邻里附着水平（型号F）之间。
在我们的最终模型克，在附近居住多年仍然显着与邻里附件一样，集体效能。社区和家庭园艺呈正相关附件的更高水平的邻里
当的人相比，谁没有花园。在最后的H型，在附近居住多年仍然显着与邻里附件一样，集体效能。在任何类型的参与园艺显着相关居委会的附件更高的水平。在无块组方差进一步减少这些模型中观察到，这意味着更多的情境因素可能对附近的附件解释重要。