↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Walking and Cycling Environments in the Streets of Madrid: Comparing On-Field and Virtual Audits

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Urban Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
46 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing Walking and Cycling Environments in the Streets of Madrid: Comparing On-Field and Virtual Audits
Published in
Journal of Urban Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11524-015-9982-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Gullón, Hannah M. Badland, Silvia Alfayate, Usama Bilal, Francisco Escobar, Alba Cebrecos, Julia Diez, Manuel Franco

Abstract

Audit tools are useful for exploring the urban environment and its association with physical activity. Virtual auditing options are becoming increasingly available potentially reducing the resources needed to conduct these assessments. Only a few studies have explored the use of virtual audit tools. Our objective is to test if the Madrid Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environment Scan (M-SPACES) discriminates between areas with different urban forms and to validate virtual street auditing using M-SPACES. Three areas (N = 500 street segments) were selected for variation in population density. M-SPACES was used to audit street segments physically and virtually (Google Street View) by two researchers in 2013-2014. For both physical and virtual audits, all analyzed features score significantly different by area (p < 0.05). Most of the features showed substantial (ICC = 0.6-0.8) or almost perfect (ICC ≥ 0.8) agreement between virtual and physical audits, especially neighborhood permeability walking infrastructure, traffic safety, streetscape aesthetics, and destinations. Intra-rater agreement was generally acceptable (ICC > 0.6). Inter-rater agreement was generally poor (ICC < 0.4). Virtual auditing provides a valid and feasible way of measuring residential urban environments. Comprehensive auditor training may be needed to guarantee good inter-rater agreement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 28%
Student > Master 15 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Environmental Science 9 14%
Social Sciences 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Engineering 6 9%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2018.
All research outputs
#461,205
of 12,801,247 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#68
of 946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,787
of 239,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,801,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.