| Literature DB >> 32218286 |
Tessa Pocock1, Antoni Moore2, Javier Molina-García3,4, Ana Queralt4,5, Sandra Mandic1,6.
Abstract
School neighbourhood built environments (SN-BE) can influence adolescents' active transport to school habits. Typically, SN-BE assessment has involved micro-scale (i.e., environmental audits) or macro-scale (Geographic Information Systems (GIS)) assessment tools. However, existing environmental audits are time/resource-intensive and not specific to school neighbourhoods, while GIS databases are not generally purposed to include micro-scale data. This study evaluated the inter-rater reliability and feasibility of using a modified audit tool and protocol (Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes Global-School Neighbourhood (MAPS Global-SN)) to assess the SN-BE of twelve secondary schools in Dunedin, New Zealand. Correlations between MAPS Global-SN and GIS measures of the SN-BE were also examined. Specifically, MAPS Global-SN audit and GIS spatial analysis (intersection density, residential density, land use mix, walkability) was conducted within a 0.5 km street-network buffer-zone around all twelve schools. Based on investigator and expert consultation, MAPS Global-SN included eight modifications to both auditing processes and items. Inter-rater reliability data was collected from two independent auditors across two schools. The feasibility of a condensed audit protocol (auditing one side of each street segment in the neighbourhood, compared to both sides) was also assessed. Results indicated the modified MAPS Global-SN tool had good to excellent inter-rater reliability and the condensed MAPS Global-SN audit protocol appeared to sufficiently represent the micro-scale SN-BE. Results also highlighted the complementary nature of micro- and macro-scale assessments. Further recommendations for SN-BE assessment are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: active commuting; educational centre; neighbourhood evaluation; urban environment; walkability; youth
Year: 2020 PMID: 32218286 PMCID: PMC7177319 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17072194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Example worksheet of the 0.5 km street network buffer-zone (blue lines) used for conducting route and segment MAPS Global audits. Note. Green highlighting refers to the identifying code of the segment; yellow highlighting refers to a street address point; black dots refer to residences.
Figure 2Hierarchical scoring system of MAPS Global route section and sub-sections (adapted from [43]). Note. Star denotes number of item-level modifications. Max points refers to the maximum number of points available from the summation of sub-scales.
Figure 3Hierarchical scoring system of MAPS Global segment and crossing sections (adapted from [43]). Note. Star denotes number of item-level modifications. Max points refers to the maximum number of points available from the summation of sub-scales.
Comparison between original MAPS Global auditing processes and modification of MAPS Global for assessment of school neighbourhood.
| MAPS Global Section | Original MAPS Global Audit Tool | Modified MAPS Global Audit Tool | Total Number Assessed | Range per School |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Route |
| 934 | 10–160 | |
|
Origin of route audit: Participant’s home address. Audited length: 0.25–0.45 miles (~0.40–0.72 km) from participant’s home towards nearest pre-determined commercial destination. Route assessment stops at the intersection following 0.25-mile threshold or mid-segment at 0.45-miles in the absence of an intersection. Route section completed once per participant’s route to assess the entire walked route. Overall summary provided for entire walked route by considering both sides of all street segments together. |
Origin of route audit: School address point. Audited area: 0.5 km street-network buffer-zone branching out from school address point. Route assessment stops immediately where the 0.5 km street-network buffer-zone ends (exception: partial buffer coverage or absence of a residence, as stated above). * Route section completed separately for odd and even street segment sides within the buffer-zone. Multiple route section audits per school. Individual summary provided for each side of each street segment walked. | |||
| Segment |
| 934 | 10–160 | |
|
Each participant’s route made up of one or more segments (dependent on road layout around each home address). Single side of the street along a participant’s route is assessed. |
Each school neighbourhood made up of many segments (dependent on road layout around each school). Both sides of each street segment are assessed individually. | |||
| Crossing |
| 767 | 3–118 | |
|
Located between two street segments. Crossings assessed when the auditor passes through an intersection along the pre-determined route. Some pre-determined routes may not have crossings. |
Located between two street segments. All intersections (≥3 connecting roads) within the school neighbourhood are assessed. Within each intersection, all connecting roads are assessed. Multiple crossing section audits completed per school. | |||
| Cul-de-sac |
| 14 | 0–6 | |
|
Cul-de-sac must be within 400 ft (120 m) of participant’s home to be assessed. |
All cul-de-sacs within the school neighbourhood assessed. Only amenities question assessed. Proximity and surveillance not applicable to assessment of the school neighbourhood. | |||
Note. Original MAPS Global auditing processes are found in Geremia and Cain [45]. * A maximum segment length was not considered necessary when developing the modified audit protocol, because the MAPS Global tool did not include a maximum segment length (other than the 0.45-mile threshold). However, auditing a 0.5 km segment meant it was often difficult to compare different characteristics across the entire segment and to keep track of the total number of items present (i.e., number of street trees). As a recommendation of this study, a shorter maximum segment length is proposed in the discussion section.
Inter-rater reliability of MAPS Global sub-scales and scores.
| ICC | CI 95% | Rater’s Mean ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rater 1 | Rater 2 | |||
| Overall Grand score | 0.97 | −15.22, 1.00 | 17.48 ± 2.80 | 18.63 ± 3.85 |
| Cross-domain sub-scales | ||||
| Pedestrian Infrastructure | 0.80 | −131.53, 1.00 | 6.28 ± 0.10 | 6.07 ± 0.26 |
| Pedestrian Design | 0.98 | −12.14, 1.00 | 3.96 ± 2.61 | 4.50 ± 3.47 |
| Bicycle Facilities | 0.99 | 0.29, 1.00 | 1.17 ± 1.37 | 1.10 ± 1.47 |
| Route section sub-scales | ||||
| Destinations and Land Use | 0.93 | 0.86, 0.96 | 2.45 ± 2.28 | 2.45 ± 2.57 |
| Positive Streetscape | 0.93 | 0.88, 0.96 | 2.05 ± 2.45 | 1.98 ± 2.31 |
| Aesthetics and Social | 0.60 | 0.26, 0.78 | −0.61 ± 1.57 | 0.09 ± 1.27 |
| Segment section sub-scales | ||||
| Overall segment score | 0.73 | 0.50, 0.85 | 11.80 ± 4.36 | 12.61 ± 4.73 |
| Crossing section sub-scales | ||||
| Overall crossing score | 0.99 | 0.99, 1.00 | 2.33 ± 3.26 | 2.29 ± 3.18 |
Note. ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; CI = Confidence Interval; SD = Standard Deviation.
MAPS Global sub-scales and scores across odd and even sides of street segments, presented individually and combined.
| MAPS Global Scores | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ODD Street Side | EVEN Street Side | COMBINED | |||||
| Mean ± SD | min, max | Mean ± SD | min, max | r-Value ( | Mean ± SD | min, max | |
| Overall grand score | 15.69 ± 1.96 | 12.62, 19.23 | 15.71 ± 2.48 | 11.13, 19.80 |
| 15.70 ± 2.16 | 12.23, 19.52 |
| Cross-domain sub-scales | |||||||
| Pedestrian infrastructure | 6.70 ± 0.67 | 5.57, 7.96 | 6.39 ± 0.88 | 4.60, 7.57 | 0.55 (0.067) | 6.54 ± 0.68 | 5.60, 7.76 |
| Pedestrian design | 3.11 ± 1.10 | 1.46, 4.93 | 3.17 ± 1.27 | 1.26, 5.21 |
| 3.14 ± 1.18 | 1.36, 5.07 |
| Bicycle facilities | 0.43 ± 0.79 | 0.00, 2.08 | 0.28 ± 0.68 | 0.00, 2.20 | 0.43 (0.160) | 0.44 ± 0.81 | 0.00, 2.04 |
| Route section sub-scales | |||||||
| Destinations and land use | 1.78 ± 0.49 | 0.00, 17.00 | 1.78 ± 0.73 | 0.00, 16.00 | 0.51 (0.090) | 1.78 ± 0.59 | 0.00, 17.00 |
| Positive streetscape | 1.29 ± 0.55 | 0.00, 13.00 | 1.58 ± 0.80 | 0.00, 12.00 |
| 1.43 ± 0.62 | 0.00, 13.00 |
| Aesthetics and social | −0.50 ± 0.44 | −4.00, 3.00 | −0.46 ± 0.66 | −4.00, 3.00 |
| −0.48 ± 0.51 | −4.00, 3.00 |
| Segment section sub-scales | |||||||
| Overall segment score | 10.60 ± 1.22 | −4.00, 22.00 | 10.29 ± 2.05 | −2.00, 23.00 |
| 10.45 ± 1.56 | −4.00, 23.00 |
| Crossing section sub-scales | |||||||
| Overall crossing score | - | - | - | - | - | 2.52 ± 1.09 | −2.00, 15.00 |
Note. Statistically significant differences are bolded. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. SD = Standard Deviation. Mean, minimum (min) and maximum (max) for each initial sub-scale (route, segment, crossing) comes from individual school values. Mean, min and max from the overall grand score and cross-domain sub-scales comes from school-level averages.