Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of desk-based and on-site audits of QUALITY residential neighbourhoods in 2015 (n = 295 street segments across 30 neighbourhoods). QUALITY Study, 2008–2015

From: Validation of desk-based audits using Google Street View® to monitor the obesogenic potential of neighbourhoods in a pediatric sample: a pilot study in the QUALITY cohort

Characteristic

(n = 295 segments)

Exact Agreement with on-site audits (%)1

Kappa coefficient or intraclass correlation coefficient1,3

Asymmetry2 (calculated only when exact agreement < 90%)

Significant asymmetry (Yes, No)

Directionality of desk-based reporting

Road and street segment4

Land use and design

Number of street sides available for parking (0, 1, 2)

91.9

0.38

  

Number of traffic lanes (1, 2, 3 or more)

93.9

0.70

  

Traffic direction (one-way, two-way)

95.3

0.85

  

Road type (local street, minor artery, major or industrial artery)

81.0

0.71

Yes (p < 0.001)

Scores roads as busier

Number of street sides with a sidewalk (0, 1, 2)

94.2

0.93

  

Public transportation available (present/absent)

97.3

0.90

  

Predominantly residential (yes/no)

95.9

0.70

  

Back alleys (index street segment only) (present/absent)

93.3

0.76

  

Exterior playgrounds or fields (present/absent)

96.3

0.72

  

Any restaurant (present/absent)5

97.9

0.59

  

Convenience/corner store (present/absent)

94.2

0.67

  

Ads/commercial billboards (present/absent)

81.7

0.17

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports more

Street segment installations or signs (present/absent)

Traffic lights for pedestrians

97.6

0.78

  

Traffic lights for cars

98.0

0.92

  

All-ways stop sign

94.2

0.88

  

Pedestrian crossing zone6

93.6

0.71

  

School corridor

93.2

0.76

  

30 km/h speed limit

96.6

0.84

  

“Watch out for children”/“Children playing”/Neighbourhood watch signs

91.9

0.62

  

Street segment modifications and markings (present/absent)

Intersection choker7

98.6

0.88

  

Speed bump

99.7

0.95

  

Road-sidewalk buffer zone (of segments with sidewalks)8

76.1

0.30

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports more

Bicycle path

97.3

0.70

  

Road-bicycle path buffer zone8 (of segments with bicycle paths)

53.3

–

No (p = 0.450)

N/A

Perceived quality, safety and aesthetics

Deteriorated sidewalks (Yes/No)

69.4

0.27

Yes (p = 0.0002)

Reports less

Deteriorated pavement (Yes/No)

74.7

0.51

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports less

Trash (present/absent)

75.6

0.03

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports more

Graffiti (present/absent)

85.1

0.55

Yes (p = 0.0015)

Reports less

Tree canopy9

59.9

0.34

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports fewer trees

Well-maintained residences/buildings (all or almost all/about ¾/about half or less)

87.6

0.47

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports lower proportion

Well-maintained front yards (all or almost all / about ¾/about half or less)

68.6

0.29

Yes (p = 0.0006)

Reports higher proportion

Buildings with decorative features10 (all or almost all / about ¾/about half or less)

61.9

0.40

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports lower proportion

Summary variables11

 > 1 traffic calming measure

93.9

0.93

  

 > 1 measure to facilitate pedestrians

93.6

0.95

  

 > 1 signs of social disorder

78.9

0.62

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports more signs

General impression (n = 30 neighbourhoods)

Safety from vehicular traffic for pedestrians (safe/a little, quite, very unsafe)

50.0

0.06

Yes (p = 0.0352)

Reports less safe

Safety from vehicular traffic for cyclists (safe/a little, quite, very unsafe)

70.0

0.33

No (p = 0.7839)

 

Effort required to get around on foot (none/any)12

40.0

0.06

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports more effort

Effort required to get around by bicycle (none/any)12

46.7

0.05

Yes (p < 0.0001)

Reports more effort

Overall neighbourhood safety (very/mostly, somewhat, not at all)

86.7

0.69

No (p = 0.1250)

 

Natural spaces (few/many)

63.3

0.28

Yes (p = 0.0009)

Reports fewer natural spaces

Signs of social disorder (none/any)

76.7

0.44

No (p = 0.2568)

 

General ambiance (very, quite pleasurable/more or less, not at all pleasurable)13

86.7

0.37

  

General aesthetics (very, quite appealing/more or less, not at all appealing)

80.0

0.39

Yes (p = 0.0143)

Reports more appeal

  1. 1The denominator is the total number of street segments audited by the on-site method (n = 295 for most items). Due to missing data, the denominator is 290 for buildings with decorative features, 293 for presence of bike lanes, and 294 for both condition of pavement and well-maintained front yards. Values in red indicate poor agreement; values in green indicate fair agreement
  2. 2McNemar test of asymmetry for 2 × 2 tables, Bowker test for 3 × 3 tables; it was not computed when there were fewer than 5 discordant items (i.e. b + c less than 5) or agreement was greater than 90%
  3. 3For 2 × 2 tables, simple Kappa was reported. For ordinal variables with more than 2 categories, weighted Kappa was reported. Kappa could not be calculated when there were too many missing data. Intraclass correlation coefficients were reported instead of Kappa coefficients for the three summary variables
  4. 4The following items were not included in the table due to low frequency (below 5% for both methods) for the following: mid-segment stop sign, bicycle-sharing station, median or island (note: 12 scored with desk-based, 3 with on-site), large obstacle, signs of vandalism, condemned building, sports complex, and adequate street lights. Sidewalk width is also not included in this table
  5. 5This items includes: regular restaurants, fast food restaurants, and coffee shops
  6. 6This item includes: midsegment zebra crossing, zebra crossing at the intersection, textured intersection for pedestrians, and pedestrian crosswalk sign
  7. 7Build-outs added to a road at or near the intersection to narrow it
  8. 8Categories are as follow: none / buffer zone without visual obstruction, buffer zone with visual obstruction, obstruction only
  9. 9Density of trees on the street segment and extent of the shade they create (not at all or a few / a few but isolated or only on one street side or not creating much shade / many)
  10. 10Decorative features refer to items that are meant to embellish the outdoor spaces. Examples include, but are not limited to plants, flowers, well-kept bushes and decorative objects
  11. 11The traffic calming measures include speed bumps, mid-segment stop signs, 30 km/h or lower speed limits, large obstacles, or traffic lights. The pedestrian-facilitating measures include all-ways stop sign, pedestrian crossing zone [4], and dedicated traffic lights for pedestrians. Signs of social disorder include any visible trash, graffiti, vacant lots, or abandoned buildings. Intraclass correlation coefficients are reported
  12. 12For effort to get around, any effort includes: a little effort / much, and a great deal of effort
  13. 13Asymmetry was not computed here as b + c was less than 5
Back to article page

International Journal of Health Geographics

ISSN: 1476-072X