Skip to main content

Table 4 Public amenities features for street segments

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

Feature N PR PA Cohen’s kappa PABAK
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]
  1. 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.
\