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

Table 4 Public amenities features for street segments

Feature	N	PR		PA		Cohen’s kappa				PABAK
Feature	N	GP	GSV	GP (%)	GSV (%)	GP	95% CI	GSV	95% CI	GP	95% CI	GSV	95% CI
Bus stop*	104	0.13	0.10	95	97	0.79	[0.61, 0.97]	0.84	[0.66, 1.00]	0.90	[0.82, 0.99]	0.94	[0.87, 1.00]
Public trash can	103	0.14	0.11	83	93	0.33	[0.0, 0.57]	0.66	[0.42, 0.89]	0.67	[0.52, 0.82]	0.86	[0.76, 0.97]
Perceived safety of segment	106	0.57	0.75	65	56	0.34	[0.20, 0.49]	-0.05	[−0.17, 0.08]	0.30	[0.12, 0.49]	0.11	[−0.08, 0.31]
Overall condition of sidewalk	81	0.72	0.74	51	37	0.29	[0.23, 0.46]	0.08	[−0.05, 0.20]	0.25	[0.09, 0.43]	0.16	[0.02, 0.30]
Garden, flower bed, or planter*	105	0.22	0.25	77	77	0.34	[0.13, 0.55]	0.39	[0.19, 0.59]	0.54	[0.38, 0.71]	0.54	[0.38, 0.71]
Amount of trash on street	106	0.81	0.83	55	35	0.27	[0.13, 0.37]	0.10	[−0.02, 0.22]	0.40	[0.27, 0.52]	0.13	[0.01. 0.26]
Attractiveness for walking	106	0.43	0.57	47	27	0.14	[0.00, 0.30]	0.04	[−0.06, 0.14]	0.21	[0.06, 0.35]	−0.09	[−0.22, 0.04]

PR average prevalence, PA percent agreement, GP GigaPan®, GSV Google Street View, CI confidence interval, PABAK prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa. An * denotes the variable was dichotomous. All other variables not denoted with * were recoded to be dichotomous solely when calculating prevalence. Significant differences across audit tools are italicized.

ISSN: 1476-072X