## 4 Findings
### The Level of Street Connectivity and Active Mobility  
Three ROC analyses were also conducted for this paper: Two ROC plots for determining optimal cutoff points (for street-length density around homes and active mobility around homes, and active mobility in commuting and non-commuting trips), and one for street-length density around workplaces and commuting active mobility.  
The corresponding street-length density around homes for the optimal cutoff value based on the maximum Youden Index is 137 m/m2 and 10.33 m/m2 for commuting and non-commuting, respectively. As shown in Figure 4, residents who live in areas with a higher amount of street-length density (more than 137 m/m2) cycle or walk to work more frequently than people who live in areas with lower street-length density. We also calculated the Area under the Curve (AUC) for all three analyses. AUC shows the accuracy of a diagnostic test; it was 0.68 and 0.53 for commuting and non-commuting active mobility, respectively.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Model 1**} \\ \hline  & B & Std. Error & Beta & T & P \\ \hline Constant & 18.63 & 7.97 & & 2.33 & 0.02 \\ Age & 8.03 & 3.44 & 0.09 & 2.33 & 0.02 \\ Daily activity & \(-\)12.72 & 2.45 & \(-\)0.21 & \(-\)5.18 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Monthly household income & \(-\)0.57 & 2.03 & \(-\)0.01 & \(-\)0.28 & 0.77 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Model 2**} \\ \hline Constant & 53.24 & 8.16 & & 6.52 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Age & 4.57 & 3.19 & 0.05 & 1.43 & 0.15 \\ Daily activity & \(-\)11.34 & 2.44 & \(-\)0.19 & \(-\)4.65 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Monthly household income & 2.41 & 1.90 & 0.05 & 1.26 & 0.20 \\ Frequency of public transport use & \(-\)6.38 & 2.18 & \(-\)0.13 & \(-\)2.92 & 0.004 \\ Commuting distance & \(-\)0.001 & 0 & \(-\)0.22 & \(-\)5.44 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Private motor vehicle use for commuting trips & \(-\)10.40 & 2.18 & \(-\)0.21 & \(-\)4.77 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Model validation**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Df} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Mean} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{F} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{P} \\  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Model 1**} \\ \hline Regression & 3 & 5101.7 & 10.46 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Residual & 531 & 487.5 & & \\ Total & 534 & & & \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Model 2**} \\ \hline Regression & 6 & 9271.07 & 22.39 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Residual & 528 & 413.9 & & \\ Total & 534 & & & \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Model summary**} \\ \hline Model & R & R-Square & Adjusted & R-Square & F Change & Df1 & Df2 & Sig. F \\  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Range} \\ \hline
1 & 0.236 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 10.46 & 3 & 531 & \(<\)0.001 \\
2 & 0.450 & 0.20 & 0.19 & 0.14 & 22.39 & 3 & 528 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: HMR model for street-length density around workplaces.  
Figure 5 illustrates that in higher a mount of length-street density more than 10.3 m/m\({}^{2}\) people use active mobility modes of transportation more in their non-commuting trips than residents who live in lower connectivity areas.  
The area under the curve for street-length density around workplaces is 0.72; as this figure gets closer to 1, the accuracy of the analysis increases. The corresponding street-length density around workplaces for the optimal cutoff value is 144.70 m/m\({}^{2}\). This means that the behavior of residents starts to change at this level of street-length density. In other words, people who work in areas that have a street-length density higher than 144.70 m/m\({}^{2}\) use fewer means of active mobility than those who work in areas with higher levels of street connectivity (Figure 6).