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:'数字化步行性':将基于智能手机和基于网络的方法进行比较,以衡量新加坡邻里步行

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的衡量邻域步行方法:基于智能手机的现场行人环境审计工具,WalkTracker(WTRAcker)和远程,基于Web的(Web)观察。具体而言,我们检查了新加坡评估的街道段和交叉路口:(1)每种方法的帧间可靠性(IRR); (2)两种方法中的方法间可靠性(IMR); (3)两种方法的平均观察时间。每种方法都有很高的土地利用和与流量相关的域,并且网络比WTracker更好地用于土地使用。在这些相同的两个域中,这两种工具相对一致(高IMR),尽管在工具中发现了更高的协议而不是在它们(URR高于IMR)中。对于主观或细粒度的特征,两种方法都有低IRR,基于网络的方法比基于应用程序的方法更糟糕。整个仪器的性能也比每个仪器内测量的可靠性更差(IMR低于IRR)。有些物品通过网络没有观察到。就观察时间而言,两种观察方法之间的测量没有统计上显着的时间差,而不是在网站上的往返行程时间。混合方法,组合这两种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