Abstract

BackgroundAlthough previous research has highlighted the association between the built environment and individual health, methodological challenges in assessing the built environment remain. In particular, many researchers have demonstrated the high inter-rater reliability of assessing large or objective built environment features and the low inter-rater reliability of assessing small or subjective built environment features using Google Street View. New methods for auditing the built environment must be evaluated to understand if there are alternative tools through which researchers can assess all types of built environment features with high agreement. This paper investigates measures of inter-rater reliability of GigaPan®, a tool that assists with capturing high-definition panoramic images, relative to Google Street View.MethodsStreet segments (n = 614) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the United States were randomly selected to audit using GigaPan® and Google Street View. Each audit assessed features related to land use, traffic and safety, and public amenities. Inter-rater reliability statistics, including percent agreement, Cohen’s kappa, and the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) were calculated for 106 street segments that were coded by two, different, human auditors.ResultsMost large-scale, objective features (e.g. bus stop presence or stop sign presence) demonstrated at least substantial inter-rater reliability for both methods, but significant differences emerged across finely detailed features (e.g. trash) and features at segment endpoints (e.g. sidewalk continuity). After adjusting for the effects of bias and prevalence, the inter-rater reliability estimates were consistently higher for almost all built environment features across GigaPan® and Google Street View.ConclusionGigaPan® is a reliable, alternative audit tool to Google Street View for studying the built environment. GigaPan® may be particularly well-suited for built environment projects with study settings in areas where Google Street View imagery is nonexistent or updated infrequently. The potential for enhanced, detailed imagery using GigaPan® will be most beneficial in studies in which current, time sensitive data are needed or microscale built environment features would be challenging to see in Google Street View. Furthermore, to better understand the effects of prevalence and bias in future reliability studies, researchers should consider using PABAK to supplement or expand upon Cohen’s kappa findings.

Highlights

  • Previous research has highlighted the association between the built environment and individual health, methodological challenges in assessing the built environment remain

  • Based on the results from this study, the audit tool selected (GigaPan® or Google Street View (GSV)) for assessing built environment (BE) features in future studies should be dependent on the specific goals of the research project

  • GigaPan® may be well-suited for BE projects with study settings in areas where GSV imagery is nonexistent or updated infrequently

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Previous research has highlighted the association between the built environment and individual health, methodological challenges in assessing the built environment remain. The microscale environment is defined as built and social environment features representing neighborhood characteristics or details that are smaller in scale and are generally more likely to change over time with fewer costs [5]. This includes street-level environmental features like housing characteristics, sidewalk presence and conditions, street lighting, traffic control characteristics, intersection features, tree coverage, curb characteristics, graffiti, and trash. DO is the gold standard in assessing the microscale environment, using DO can be costly and time intensive depending on the location and the size of the area being observed [7]. These limitations are especially problematic when the areas of interest are geographically dispersed across various political or administrative divisions (e.g. states, provinces, prefectures) or countries

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call