Show simple item record

Virtual audits of the urban streetscape: comparing the inter-rater reliability of GigaPan® to Google Street View

dc.contributor.authorBromm, Katherine N.
dc.contributor.authorLang, Ian-Marshall
dc.contributor.authorTwardzik, Erica E.
dc.contributor.authorAntonakos, Cathy L.
dc.contributor.authorDubowitz, Tamara
dc.contributor.authorColabianchi, Natalie
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-10T18:24:05Z
dc.date.available2022-08-10T18:24:05Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-12
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Health Geographics. 2020 Aug 12;19(1):31
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-020-00226-0
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/173713en
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Although 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. Methods Street 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. Results Most 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. Conclusion GigaPan® 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.
dc.titleVirtual audits of the urban streetscape: comparing the inter-rater reliability of GigaPan® to Google Street View
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173713/1/12942_2020_Article_226.pdf
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.7302/5444
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dc.date.updated2022-08-10T18:24:04Z
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.