Andrew Larkin1, Xiang Gu2, Lizhong Chen1, Perry Hystad1. 1. College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR USA, 97331. 2. School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Oregon State University.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High quality built environments are important for human health and wellbeing. Numerous studies have characterized built environment physical features and environmental exposures, but few have examined urban perceptions at geographic scales needed for population-based research. The degree to which urban perceptions are associated with different environmental features, and traditional environmental exposures such as air pollution or urban green space, is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine built environment factors associated with safety, lively and beauty perceptions across 56 cities. METHODS: We examined perceptions collected in the open source Place Pulse 2.0 dataset, which assigned safety, lively and beauty scores to street view images based on crowd-sourced labelling. We derived built environment measures for the locations of these images (110,000 locations across 56 global cities) using GIS and remote sensing datasets as well as street view imagery features (e.g. trees, cars) using deep learning image segmentation. Linear regression models were developed using Lasso penalized variable selection to predict perceptions based on visible (street level images) and GIS/remote sensing built environment variables. RESULTS: Population density, impervious surface area, major roads, traffic air pollution, tree cover and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) showed statistically significant differences between high and low safety, lively, and beauty perception locations. Visible street level features explained approximately 18% of the variation in safety, lively, and beauty perceptions, compared to 3-10% explained by GIS/remote sensing. Large differences in prediction were seen when modelling between city (R2 67-81%) versus within city (R2 11-13%) perceptions. Important predictor variables included visible accessibility features (e.g. streetlights, benches) and roads for safety, visible plants and buildings for lively, and visible green space and NDVI for beauty. CONCLUSION: Substantial within and between city differences in built environment perceptions exist, which visible street level features and GIS/remote sensing variables only partly explain. This offers a new research avenue to expand built environment measurement methods to include perceptions in addition to physical features.
BACKGROUND: High quality built environments are important for human health and wellbeing. Numerous studies have characterized built environment physical features and environmental exposures, but few have examined urban perceptions at geographic scales needed for population-based research. The degree to which urban perceptions are associated with different environmental features, and traditional environmental exposures such as air pollution or urban green space, is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine built environment factors associated with safety, lively and beauty perceptions across 56 cities. METHODS: We examined perceptions collected in the open source Place Pulse 2.0 dataset, which assigned safety, lively and beauty scores to street view images based on crowd-sourced labelling. We derived built environment measures for the locations of these images (110,000 locations across 56 global cities) using GIS and remote sensing datasets as well as street view imagery features (e.g. trees, cars) using deep learning image segmentation. Linear regression models were developed using Lasso penalized variable selection to predict perceptions based on visible (street level images) and GIS/remote sensing built environment variables. RESULTS: Population density, impervious surface area, major roads, traffic air pollution, tree cover and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) showed statistically significant differences between high and low safety, lively, and beauty perception locations. Visible street level features explained approximately 18% of the variation in safety, lively, and beauty perceptions, compared to 3-10% explained by GIS/remote sensing. Large differences in prediction were seen when modelling between city (R2 67-81%) versus within city (R2 11-13%) perceptions. Important predictor variables included visible accessibility features (e.g. streetlights, benches) and roads for safety, visible plants and buildings for lively, and visible green space and NDVI for beauty. CONCLUSION: Substantial within and between city differences in built environment perceptions exist, which visible street level features and GIS/remote sensing variables only partly explain. This offers a new research avenue to expand built environment measurement methods to include perceptions in addition to physical features.
Entities:
Keywords:
Perceptions; beauty; built environment; health; lively; safety
Authors: Joan Domènech-Abella; Jordi Mundó; Matilde Leonardi; Somnath Chatterji; Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk; Seppo Koskinen; Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Josep Maria Haro; Beatriz Olaya Journal: Health Place Date: 2019-12-28 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Stephen J Mooney; Michael D M Bader; Gina S Lovasi; Julien O Teitler; Karestan C Koenen; Allison E Aiello; Sandro Galea; Emily Goldmann; Daniel M Sheehan; Andrew G Rundle Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Perry Hystad; Hugh W Davies; Lawrence Frank; Josh Van Loon; Ulrike Gehring; Lillian Tamburic; Michael Brauer Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 9.031