Table 2.

Agreement on segment subscales between virtual raters with different familiarities of the environment (n=141)

Subscale	Label	Number of Items	Mean (SD)	Virtual Tool^a		In-field Tool^b
				ICC (95% Confidence Interval)	Range of Item Kappas or ICCs (% Agreement)	ICC	Range of Item Kappas or ICCs (% Agreement)
Positive Subscale
Building Height and Setbacks	Smallest and largest setbacks and building height	3	1.01	0.448	0.232–0.906	0.370	0.522–0.764
Building Height and Setbacks	Smallest and largest setbacks and building height	3	(0.49)	(0.284–0.586)	(65.7%–99.1%)		(50.7%–97.5%)
Sidewalk Positive Qualities	Sidewalk presence and width	3	2.09	0.360	−0.013–0.865	0.555	0.489–1.000
Sidewalk Positive Qualities	Sidewalk presence and width	3	(0.45)	(0.181–0.516)	(12.5%–98.1%)		(81.8%–100%)
Buffers	Buffer presence and width Marked bicycle lane, signage	2	0.45	0.887	0.699–0.971	0.940	0.882–0.919
Buffers	Buffer presence and width Marked bicycle lane, signage	2	(0.84)	(0.839–0.922)	(77.3%–96.3%)		(95.3%–96.5%)
Bicycle Infrastructure	Street-level windows, building colors and materials	2	0.38	0.724	0.617–0.798	0.855	0.676–0.791
Bicycle Infrastructure	Street-level windows, building colors and materials	2	(0.93)	(0.621–0.803)	(90.7%–96.3%)		(97.1%–97.3%)
Building Aesthetics and Design	Number and spacing of trees, percent of sidewalk shaded	4	3.20	0.604	0.185–0.578	0.705	0.549–0.629
Building Aesthetics and Design	Number and spacing of trees, percent of sidewalk shaded	4	(1.57)	(0.470–0.711)	(41.4%–80.2%)		(56.4%–80.2%)
Trees	Is there an informal path (shortcut) which connects to something else?	3	1.75	0.719	0.247–0.774	0.744	0.540–0.737
Trees		3	(1.26)	(0.606–0.804)	(51.9%–95.4%)		(55.4%–91.6%)
Overall Positive	Smallest and largest setbacks and building height	6	9.02	0.797		0.752
Overall Positive	Smallest and largest setbacks and building height	Subscales	(3.13)	(0.709–0.861)
Negative Subscale
Sidewalk Negative Qualities	Trip hazard, obstructions in the sidewalk	5	0.28	0.360	0.164–0.862	0.675	0.476–0.796
Sidewalk Negative Qualities	Trip hazard, obstructions in the sidewalk	5	(0.55)	(0.181–0.516)	(63.6%–98.0%)		(61.5%–93.6%)
Building Height: Road Width and Setback Ratio	Smallest and largest setbacks, building height, and road width	3	0.20	0.588	0.435–0.960	0.614	0.522–0.808
Building Height: Road Width and Setback Ratio		3	(0.07)	(0.449–0.698)	(38.0%–95.4%)		(36.4%–96.2%)
Negative Street Design/width	Traffic lanes, one-way or two-way	2	1.34	0.897	0.897–1.000	0.706	0.696–0.711
Negative Street Design/width	Traffic lanes, one-way or two-way	2	(0.47)	(0.854–0.929)	(95.4%–100%)		(93.8%–99.3%)
Overall Negative Subscale	Sum of subscales: Sidewalk negative qualities, building height: road width and setback ratio, negative street design/width	3	1.82	0.364		0.689
Overall Negative Subscale		subscales	(0.73)	(0.180–0.522)
Overall Subscales
Overall Segments Score	Overall Positive – Overall Negative subscales		8.91	0.733		0.753
Overall Segments Score	Overall Positive – Overall Negative subscales		(3.07)	(0.619–0.816)

Measured by Google Earth between virtual raters with different familiarities of the environment.

Measured in field between raters with same familiarity of the environment (Millstain RA, Cain KL, Sallis JF, et al. Development, scoring, and reliability of the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). BMC Public Health. 2013 Apr 27;13:403.).