232
G. M. Oliveira et al.
Table 5 One-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD
tests to compare WeGIx scores by territory population density
WeGIx
Descriptive statistics
Tukey H.S.D.
One-way
ANOVA
Population density
N
Mean
Population density
Mean difference
p
F
p
2009
Predominantly urban
36
3.6
Predominantly urban
Semi-urban
3.4
0.043
3.8
0.025
Semi-urban
86
0.3
Predominantly rural
3.5
0.021
Predominantly rural
186
0.2
Semi-urban
Predominantly rural
0.1
0.998
2015
Predominantly urban
36
0.6
Predominantly urban
Semi-urban
0.8
0.446
0.8
0.448
Semi-urban
86
−0.1
Predominantly rural
0.7
0.472
Predominantly rural
186
−0.0
Semi-urban
Predominantly rural
−0.1
0.975
Present
Predominantly urban
36
0.6
Predominantly urban
Semi-urban
0.8
0.416
Semi-urban
86
−0.1
Predominantly rural
0.8
0.330
1.1
0.351
Predominantly rural
186
−0.2
Semi-urban
Predominantly rural
0.0
0.998
Note
Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) are marked in bold
G. M. Oliveira et al.
Table 5 One-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD
tests to compare WeGIx scores by territory population density
WeGIx
Descriptive statistics
Tukey H.S.D.
One-way
ANOVA
Population density
N
Mean
Population density
Mean difference
p
F
p
2009
Predominantly urban
36
3.6
Predominantly urban
Semi-urban
3.4
0.043
3.8
0.025
Semi-urban
86
0.3
Predominantly rural
3.5
0.021
Predominantly rural
186
0.2
Semi-urban
Predominantly rural
0.1
0.998
2015
Predominantly urban
36
0.6
Predominantly urban
Semi-urban
0.8
0.446
0.8
0.448
Semi-urban
86
−0.1
Predominantly rural
0.7
0.472
Predominantly rural
186
−0.0
Semi-urban
Predominantly rural
−0.1
0.975
Present
Predominantly urban
36
0.6
Predominantly urban
Semi-urban
0.8
0.416
Semi-urban
86
−0.1
Predominantly rural
0.8
0.330
1.1
0.351
Predominantly rural
186
−0.2
Semi-urban
Predominantly rural
0.0
0.998
Note
Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) are marked in bold
