Adaptation and testing of a microscale audit tool to assess liveability using Google Street View: MAPS-Liveability

Abstract Background Liveability is a complex, multifaceted concept with various definitions, but with an agreed core set of features (e.g., safety, walkability). Typically, liveability is measured at the macro-level (city or regional-level), and has been used in advocacy by local populations. However, micro-level (street-level) liveability measurements could also/alternatively be used to identify modifiable environmental features impacting health and well-being. To date, no micro-level liveability tools exist. This study investigates the reliability and rater agreement of a new micro-level audit tool designed for use with Google Street View (GSV). Methods MAPS-Liveability (GSV), was adapted from the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). This study had two phases: 1) MAPS-Liveability development (rapid literature review identifying core liveability concepts, focus groups confirming liveability concepts and tool adaptation); 2) reliability investigation (researcher agreement). Assessment was made of: total liveability; nine liveability sub-characteristics (e.g., safety, health); and 12 proxy measures of behaviour including active travel (e.g., bicycle racks, presence of bicycles in racks). Inter-rater reliability and sensitivity to change were assessed by percentage agreement, inter-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Wilcoxon signed-ranked tests (p  Results Inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC 0.905–0.968) for total liveability, parked cars and total number of cars (moving/parked); good (ICC 0.754–0.885) for health, sustainability, places, number of bicycle racks, bicycle rack capacity, number of bicycles in the racks (time-point 2), cyclists (time-point 2), moving cars (time-point 2) and pedestrians; and moderate (ICC 0.550–0.742) for safety, inclusivity, education, traffic/transport, pavements, roads, cyclists (time-point 1), number of bicycles in the racks (time-point 1) and moving cars (time-point 1). Conclusion MAPS-Liveability provides a reliable assessment of micro-level liveability features. MAPS-Liveability has excellent inter-rater reliability for total liveability and moderate-excellent inter-rater reliability for liveability attributes and behavioural indicators. GSV at street-level supports safe, large-scale objective data collection, and collection of historical data where primary data is unavailable.

[1]  G. Kolt,et al.  Mental health benefits of neighbourhood green space are stronger among physically active adults in middle-to-older age: evidence from 260,061 Australians. , 2013, Preventive medicine.

[2]  Grace Aw,et al.  A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities: the Global Liveable Cities Index , 2014 .

[3]  B. Giles-Corti,et al.  Urban liveability: emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health. , 2014, Social science & medicine.

[4]  Billie Giles-Corti,et al.  Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. , 2002, American journal of preventive medicine.

[5]  James F. Sallis,et al.  Comparison of field and online observations for measuring land uses using the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS) , 2016 .

[6]  Carlos J. L. Balsas,et al.  Measuring the livability of an urban centre: an exploratory study of key performance indicators , 2004 .

[7]  S. Cotterill,et al.  Method for Observing pHysical Activity and Wellbeing (MOHAWk): validation of an observation tool to assess physical activity and other wellbeing behaviours in urban spaces , 2020, Cities & Health.

[8]  Hannah Badland,et al.  Planning Healthy, Liveable and Sustainable Cities: How Can Indicators Inform Policy? , 2015 .

[9]  Norafida Ab Ghafar,et al.  A Systematic Review on City Liveability Global Research in the Built Environment: Publication and Citation Matrix , 2017 .

[10]  Rahul Goel,et al.  Estimating city-level travel patterns using street imagery: A case study of using Google Street View in Britain , 2018, PloS one.

[11]  Terry K Koo,et al.  A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. , 2016, Journal Chiropractic Medicine.

[12]  Mark Stevenson,et al.  City planning and population health: a global challenge , 2016, The Lancet.

[13]  Daniel A. Rodriguez,et al.  The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment , 2007 .

[14]  Peter Newman,et al.  The environmental impact of cities , 2006 .

[15]  Lawrence D Frank,et al.  Development, scoring, and reliability of the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS) , 2013, BMC Public Health.

[16]  Andy P. Jones,et al.  Developing and testing a street audit tool using Google Street View to measure environmental supportiveness for physical activity , 2013, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[17]  Hannah Badland,et al.  Reconnecting urban planning with health: a protocol for the development and validation of national liveability indicators associated with noncommunicable disease risk behaviours and health outcomes. , 2014, Public health research & practice.

[18]  R. Davey,et al.  Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study , 2016, The Lancet.

[19]  Hannah Badland,et al.  The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice , 2019, International Journal of Health Geographics.

[20]  G. Kolt,et al.  Greener neighborhoods, slimmer people? Evidence from 246 920 Australians , 2014, International Journal of Obesity.

[21]  James F. Sallis,et al.  Online versus in-person comparison of Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS) assessments: reliability of alternate methods , 2017, International Journal of Health Geographics.

[22]  P. Tucker,et al.  The effect of season and weather on physical activity: a systematic review. , 2007, Public health.

[23]  A. Stewart,et al.  A Framework for Understanding Modifications to Measures for Diverse Populations , 2012, Journal of aging and health.