Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 87, Issue 6, pp 1007–1016 | Cite as

Can Virtual Streetscape Audits Reliably Replace Physical Streetscape Audits?

  • Hannah M. Badland
  • Simon Opit
  • Karen Witten
  • Robin A. Kearns
  • Suzanne Mavoa


There is increasing recognition that the neighborhood-built environment influences health outcomes, such as physical activity behaviors, and technological advancements now provide opportunities to examine the neighborhood streetscape remotely. Accordingly, the aims of this methodological study are to: (1) compare the efficiencies of physically and virtually conducting a streetscape audit within the neighborhood context, and (2) assess the level of agreement between the physical (criterion) and virtual (test) audits. Built environment attributes associated with walking and cycling were audited using the New Zealand Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environment Scan (NZ-SPACES) in 48 street segments drawn from four neighborhoods in Auckland, New Zealand. Audits were conducted physically (on-site) and remotely (using Google Street View) in January and February 2010. Time taken to complete the audits, travel mileage, and Internet bandwidth used were also measured. It was quicker to conduct the virtual audits when compared with the physical audits (χ = 115.3 min (virtual), χ = 148.5 min (physical)). In the majority of cases, the physical and virtual audits were within the acceptable levels of agreement (ICC ≥ 0.70) for the variables being assessed. The methodological implication of this study is that Google Street View is a potentially valuable data source for measuring the contextual features of neighborhood streets that likely impact on health outcomes. Overall, Google Street View provided a resource-efficient and reliable alternative to physically auditing the attributes of neighborhood streetscapes associated with walking and cycling. Supplementary data derived from other sources (e.g., Geographical Information Systems) could be used to assess the less reliable streetscape variables.


Cycling Google street view Neighborhood SPACES Walking 


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Frank LD, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Chapman JE, Saelens BE, Bachman W. Many pathways from land use to health: associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. J Am Plan Assoc. 2006; 72(1): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ewing R, Schmid T, Killingsworth R, Zlot A, Raudenbush S. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity and morbidity. Am J Health Promot. 2003; 18(1): 47–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galea S, Vlahov D. Urban health: evidence, challenges, and directions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005; 26: 341–365.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leslie E, Coffee N, Frank L, Owen N, Bauman A, Hugo G. Walkability of local communities: using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health Place. 2007; 13(1): 111–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93(9): 1552–1558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, Sallis JF, Owen N, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Neighborhood SES and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian adults. Prev Med. 2010; 50 (Supp 1): S74–S79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pikora TJ, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman MW, Bull FC, Jamrozik K, Donovan RJ. Neighborhood environmental factors correlated with walking near home: using SPACES. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006; 38(4): 708–718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pikora TJ, Giles-Corti B, Bull FC, Jamrozik K, Donovan RJ. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56(8): 1693–1703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pikora TJ, Bull FC, Jamrozik K, Knuiman M, Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 23: 187–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Badland HM, Schofield GM, Witten K, et al. Understanding the Relationship between Activity and Neighbourhoods (URBAN) Study: research design and methodology. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9: 224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson J, Lindsey G, Liu G. Viewshed characteristics of urban pedestrian trails, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. J Maps. 2008; v2008: 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Google maps. Street View. 2010. Accessed on: 5 August 2010.
  13. 13.
    Google maps. 2010. Accessed on: 5 August 2010.
  14. 14.
    Google earth. 2010. Accessed on: 5 August 2010.
  15. 15.
    Curtis A, Duval-Diop D, Novak K. Identifying spatial patterns of recovery and abandonment in the post-Katrina Holy Cross neighborhood of New Orleans. Cartography Geogr Info Sci. 2010; 37: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1): 159–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baumgartner TA, Chung H. Confidence limits for intraclass reliability coefficients. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2001; 5: 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Looney MA. When is the intraclass correlation coefficient misleading? Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2000; 4: 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    IPEN International Physical Activity and the Environment Network. No date. Accessed on: 11 August 2011.

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannah M. Badland
    • 1
  • Simon Opit
    • 2
  • Karen Witten
    • 3
  • Robin A. Kearns
    • 2
  • Suzanne Mavoa
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Physical Activity and NutritionAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of EnvironmentThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.SHORE (Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation)Massey UniversityAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations