Assessing the Built Environment Using Omnidirectional Imagery

Abstract

Background Observational audits are commonly used in public health research to collect data on built environment characteristics that affect health-related behaviors and outcomes, including physical activity and weight status. However, implementing in-person field audits can be expensive if observations are needed over large or geographically dispersed areas or at multiple points in time. A reliable and more efficient method for observational audits could facilitate extendibility (i.e., expanded geographic and temporal scope) and lead to more standardized assessment that strengthens the ability to compare results across different regions and studies. Purpose To evaluate the degree of agreement between field audits and audits derived from interpretation of three types of omnidirectional imagery. Methods Street segments from St. Louis and Indianapolis were geographically stratified to ensure representation of neighborhoods with different socioeconomic characteristics in both cities. Audits were conducted in 2008 and 2009 using four methods: field audits, and interpretation of archived imagery, new imagery, and Google Street View imagery. Agreement between field audits and image-based audits was assessed using observed agreement and the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa statistic (PABAK). Data analysis was conducted in 2010. Results When measuring the agreement between field audits and audits from the different sources of imagery, the mean PABAK statistic for all items on the instrument was 0.78 (archived), 0.80 (new) and 0.81 (Street View imagery), indicating substantial to nearly perfect agreement among methods. Conclusions Image-based audits represent a reliable method that can be used in place of field audits to measure several key characteristics of the built environment important to public health research.

Assessing Walking and Cycling Environments in the Streets of Madrid: Comparing On-Field and Virtual Audits

“…[10][11][12][13][14] The development of reliable tools and methods to audit the physical qualities of the urban environment that likely impact physical activity remains an ongoing challenge for public health researchers. More than 30 field audit instruments have been developed in recent years, 15 which can be further classified into subjective (questionnaires and interviews) and objective tools (direct observation with checklists, official dataset, etc.). 11,16,17 The use of subjective or objective tools depends on the objective of the study and the availability of research resources.…”

“…Experiences of using open-source mapping technologies have emerged mostly in the USA 15,[19][20][21][22][23][24] , but also in Canada, 25,26 Australia, 27 New Zealand 28 , UK, 29 Netherlands, 30 and Belgium. 31 Due to historical reasons, European cities 32 have different urban forms compared to cities in North America or Australia, and therefore, the study of the urban environment in Europe has its own challenges.…”

Aspects of the built environment associated with obesity in children and adolescents: A narrative review

“…-The food retail index was not associated with BMI or food intake variables. record of an area and allows observing many characteristics of the built environment; however, the temporal relationship between image captures and outcome assessment in the studies can be a problem 49 .…”

Applying Google Maps and Google Street View in criminological research

“…A number of public health studies have already looked into the opportunities that Street View offers for collecting data on the built environment, and confirm that audits using Street View imagery offer a convenient and reliable alternative to on-site audits (Wilson and Kelly 2011;Wilson et al 2012;Kelly et al 2013;Ben-Joseph et al 2013;Odgers et al 2012;Badland et al 2010;Clarke et al 2010;Taylor et al 2011;Rundle et al 2011;Griew et al 2013;Kronkvist 2013). The results obtained through Street View are generally valid and consistently show acceptable levels of reliability.…”

“…The major disadvantage of using Street View in environmental audits is that small-scale items, such as the presence of cigarette butts or the condition of sidewalks, cannot be reliably measured, and more qualitative assessments relating to the social environment, such as the general level of social disorder, are not accurately assessed (Kelly et al 2013;Ben-Joseph et al 2013;Wilson et al 2012;Odgers et al 2012;Rundle et al 2011;Clarke et al 2010;Griew et al 2013;Kronkvist 2013). Moreover, it is often unclear whether the images accurately reflect the current on-site situation.…”