Table 2.

Prevalence (%) of Street Segments Within Domains by Rater, Method (Street- and Parcel-Level) and Source (Direct and Virtual)

	Direct (n=168 ratings)				Virtual (n=168 ratings)
	Street-level (n=84 ratings)		Parcel-level (n=84 ratings)		Street-level (n=84 ratings)		Parcel-level (n=84 ratings)
Items	Rater 1 (n=42 ratings )	Rater 2 (n=42 ratings )	Rater 1 (n=42 ratings )	Rater 2 (n=42 ratings )	Rater 1 (n=42 ratings )	Rater 2 (n=42 ratings )	Rater 1 (n=42 ratings )	Rater 2 (n=42 ratings )
Physical disorder
Moderate/heavy garbage or litter	57.1	59.5	78.6	71.4	50.0	54.8	64.3	73.8
Graffiti present	16.7	9.5	14.3	12.2	14.3	4.8	9.5	16.7
Cluttered residential porches present	21.4	19.1	21.4	46.3	11.9	14.3	19.1	28.6
Physical decay
Fair/poor residential conditiona	22.5	24.4	23.8	34.2	12.5	22.0	16.7	23.8
Fair/poor yard conditionb	22.5	24.4	9.8	15.0	12.5	22.0	5.0	15.0
Fair/poor businessesc	45.5	40.0	40.0	54.6	27.3	43.8	44.4	66.7
Fair/poor vacant lotsd	27.8	38.1	16.7	33.3	25.0	38.9	11.1	38.9
Fair/poor streete	100.0	97.6	97.5	97.6	95.1	97.6	97.5	97.5
Fair/poor sidewalksf	86.5	94.7	83.8	92.1	91.9	94.9	91.9	97.4
Street safety
Speed limit signs present	23.8	26.2	24.4	23.1	28.6	26.2	69.1	76.2
Bike lane present	2.4	0.0	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.4	0.0
>50% of street lit	50.0	50.0	51.2	59.5	40.5	52.4	64.3	52.4
Safety
Rated as unsafe place to live	24.3	36.6	25.0	40.5	13.2	26.5	17.5	34.2
Rated as unsafe to walk at night	23.7	38.9	30.0	52.8	17.1	47.4	21.6	48.6
Alarm systems/securit y signs present	59.5	59.6	71.4	61.0	53.7	54.8	61.9	59.5
Land useg
Residential	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	10.00	100.0	100.0
Commercial, business	26.2	26.2	23.8	26.8	23.8	26.2	21.4	28.6
Industrial, warehouse, manufacturing	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.4	4.8	4.8
Institutional	9.5	11.9	9.5	9.8	11.9	11.9	11.9	11.9
Recreational facility	4.8	4.8	4.8	4.9	4.8	7.1	2.4	4.8
Vacant lot, open space	33.3	50.0	42.9	51.2	33.3	38.1	42.9	42.9

^aResidential condition rated on a 4 point scale (poor/badly deteriorated; fair; good/well-kept; no residential units on the street). A dichotomous variable was created good/well-kept vs. fair and poor/badly deteriorated. Prevalence reported for fair, poor/badly deteriorated.

^bResidential yard condition rated on a 4 point scale (poor/badly deteriorated; fair; good/wellkept; no residential yards on the street). A dichotomous variable was created good/well-kept vs. fair and poor/badly deteriorated. Prevalence reported for fair, poor/badly deteriorated.

^cCommercial/business condition rated on a 4 point scale (poor/badly deteriorated; fair; good/well-kept; no commercial/businesses on the street). A dichotomous variable was created good/well-kept vs. fair and poor/badly deteriorated. Prevalence reported for fair, poor/badly deteriorated.

^dVacant lot condition was assessed using three question on physical features used to categorized as (poor/badly deteriorated; fair; good/well-kept; no commercial/businesses on the street). A dichotomous variable was created good/well-kept vs. fair and poor/badly deteriorated. Prevalence reported for fair, poor/badly deteriorated.

^eStreet condition were rated on a 4 point scale (poor/badly deteriorated; fair; good/well-kept; under construction; not present). A dichotomous variable was created good/well-kept vs. fair and poor/badly deteriorated. Prevalence reported for fair, poor/badly deteriorated.

^fSidewalk condition were rated on a 5 point scale (poor/badly deteriorated; fair; good/well-kept; under construction; not present). A dichotomous variable was created good/well-kept vs. fair and poor/badly deteriorated. Prevalence reported for fair, poor/badly deteriorated.

^gPercent of street segments containing at least one parcel of specified land use category.