BACKGROUND: Research indicates that neighborhood environment characteristics such as physical disorder influence health and health behavior. In-person audit of neighborhood environments is costly and time-consuming. Google Street View may allow auditing of neighborhood environments more easily and at lower cost, but little is known about the feasibility of such data collection. PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of using Google Street View to audit neighborhood environments. METHODS: This study compared neighborhood measurements coded in 2008 using Street View with neighborhood audit data collected in 2007. The sample included 37 block faces in high-walkability neighborhoods in New York City. Field audit and Street View data were collected for 143 items associated with seven neighborhood environment constructions: aesthetics, physical disorder, pedestrian safety, motorized traffic and parking, infrastructure for active travel, sidewalk amenities, and social and commercial activity. To measure concordance between field audit and Street View data, percentage agreement was used for categoric measures and Spearman rank-order correlations were used for continuous measures. RESULTS: The analyses, conducted in 2009, found high levels of concordance (≥80% agreement or ≥0.60 Spearman rank-order correlation) for 54.3% of the items. Measures of pedestrian safety, motorized traffic and parking, and infrastructure for active travel had relatively high levels of concordance, whereas measures of physical disorder had low levels. Features that are small or that typically exhibit temporal variability had lower levels of concordance. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study indicates that Google Street View can be used to audit neighborhood environments.
BACKGROUND: Research indicates that neighborhood environment characteristics such as physical disorder influence health and health behavior. In-person audit of neighborhood environments is costly and time-consuming. Google Street View may allow auditing of neighborhood environments more easily and at lower cost, but little is known about the feasibility of such data collection. PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of using Google Street View to audit neighborhood environments. METHODS: This study compared neighborhood measurements coded in 2008 using Street View with neighborhood audit data collected in 2007. The sample included 37 block faces in high-walkability neighborhoods in New York City. Field audit and Street View data were collected for 143 items associated with seven neighborhood environment constructions: aesthetics, physical disorder, pedestrian safety, motorized traffic and parking, infrastructure for active travel, sidewalk amenities, and social and commercial activity. To measure concordance between field audit and Street View data, percentage agreement was used for categoric measures and Spearman rank-order correlations were used for continuous measures. RESULTS: The analyses, conducted in 2009, found high levels of concordance (≥80% agreement or ≥0.60 Spearman rank-order correlation) for 54.3% of the items. Measures of pedestrian safety, motorized traffic and parking, and infrastructure for active travel had relatively high levels of concordance, whereas measures of physical disorder had low levels. Features that are small or that typically exhibit temporal variability had lower levels of concordance. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study indicates that Google Street View can be used to audit neighborhood environments.
Authors: Mario Schootman; Elena M Andresen; Fredric D Wolinsky; Theodore K Malmstrom; J Philip Miller; Douglas K Miller Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2006-01-18 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Charles Agyemang; Carolien van Hooijdonk; Wanda Wendel-Vos; Ellen Lindeman; Karien Stronks; Mariël Droomers Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Amy H Auchincloss; Ana V Diez Roux; Daniel G Brown; Christine A Erdmann; Alain G Bertoni Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Mai Stafford; Steven Cummins; Anne Ellaway; Amanda Sacker; Richard D Wiggins; Sally Macintyre Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Pedro Gullón; Hannah M Badland; Silvia Alfayate; Usama Bilal; Francisco Escobar; Alba Cebrecos; Julia Diez; Manuel Franco Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Stephen J Mooney; Charles J DiMaggio; Gina S Lovasi; Kathryn M Neckerman; Michael D M Bader; Julien O Teitler; Daniel M Sheehan; Darby W Jack; Andrew G Rundle Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Hannah Lee Coakley; Elizabeth Anderson Steeves; Jessica C Jones-Smith; Laura Hopkins; Nadine Braunstein; Yeeli Mui; Joel Gittelsohn Journal: J Hunger Environ Nutr Date: 2014
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; Salma Shariff-Marco; Mindy DeRouen; Theresa H M Keegan; Irene H Yen; Mahasin Mujahid; William A Satariano; Sally L Glaser Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Richard V Remigio; Garazi Zulaika; Renata S Rabello; John Bryan; Daniel M Sheehan; Sandro Galea; Marilia S Carvalho; Andrew Rundle; Gina S Lovasi Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Peter James; Marta Jankowska; Christine Marx; Jaime E Hart; David Berrigan; Jacqueline Kerr; Philip M Hurvitz; J Aaron Hipp; Francine Laden Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 5.043