首页> 外文期刊>Journal of urban technology >'Digitalizing Walkability': Comparing Smartphone-Based and Web-Based Approaches to Measuring Neighborhood Walkability in Singapore
【24h】

'Digitalizing Walkability': Comparing Smartphone-Based and Web-Based Approaches to Measuring Neighborhood Walkability in Singapore

机译:“数字化步行能力”:比较基于智能手机和基于网络的方法来衡量新加坡的邻里步行能力

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

We evaluated two digitally enabled approaches to measuring neighborhood walkability: a smartphone-based, on-site pedestrian environmental audit tool, WalkTracker (WTracker), and remote, Web-based (Web) observations. Specifically, we examined street segments and intersections of a neighborhood in Singapore assessing: (1) the Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR) of each approach; (2) the Inter-Method Reliability (IMR) across the two approaches; and (3) the average observation times of the two approaches. Each approach had high IRR for the land use and traffic-related domains, with the Web performing better than WTracker for land use. In these same two domains, the two tools were relatively consistent (high IMR), although higher agreement was found within the tools than across them (IRR higher than IMR). For subjective or fine-grained features, both approaches had low IRR, with the Web-based approach performing worse than the app-based approach. Performance across the instruments was also worse than the reliability of measurements within each instrument (IMR lower than IRR). Some items were not observable via the Web. In terms of observation time, there was no statistically significant time difference in measurements between the two observation methods, not including the round-trip travel time to the site. A hybrid approach, combining the two approaches, might be most appropriate.
机译:我们评估了两种数字化方法来衡量社区的步行能力:基于智能手机的现场行人环境审核工具WalkTracker(WTracker)和基于Web的远程观察。具体而言,我们检查了新加坡某社区的街道段和交叉路口,以评估:(1)每种方法的等级间可靠性(IRR); (2)两种方法之间的方法间可靠性(IMR); (3)两种方法的平均观测时间。每种方法在土地使用和交通相关领域的IRR都很高,在土地使用方面,Web的性能要优于WTracker。在这两个领域中,这两个工具相对一致(IMR较高),尽管在工具内的一致性高于在两个工具之间(IRR高于IMR)。对于主观或细粒度功能,这两种方法的IRR都很低,基于Web的方法比基于App的方法的性能差。整个仪器的性能也比每个仪器内测量的可靠性差(IMR低于IRR)。有些项目无法通过Web观察到。就观测时间而言,两种观测方法之间的测量值在统计学上没有显着的时差,这还不包括到达现场的往返时间。结合两种方法的混合方法可能是最合适的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号