Table 2 Comparison of on-street observation and the use of GSV for alcohol-related imagery in 12 street segments (Wellington, New Zealand, April 2015)
On-street | GSV | Difference between methods | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristic | Total identified [A] | Mean [B] | SD | Total identified [C] | Mean [D] | SD | Total identified [A]-[C] | Mean [B]-[D] | % difference [C]/[A] |
Alcohol retail venues | 268 | 11.1 | 10.8 | 135 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 133 | 5.5 | 50 % |
Other retail venues | 400 | 16.7 | 10.1 | 440 | 18.3 | 11.1 | −40 | −1.6 | 110 % |
Isolated brand marketing | 99 | 4.1 | 9.0 | 15 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 84 | 3.5 | 15 % |
Venue associated brand marketing | 296 | 12.3 | 12.1 | 153 | 6.4 | 6.3 | 143 | 5.9 | 52 % |
Outlet marketing | 633 | 26.4 | 25.7 | 214 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 419 | 17.5 | 34 % |
Alcohol health promotion materials | 20 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 19 | 0.8 | 5 % |
Alcohol regulatory | 113 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 32 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 81 | 3.4 | 28 % |
Visible drinkers | 96 | 4.0 | 9.5 | 12 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 84 | 3.5 | 13 % |
Alcohol-related litter | 24 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 23 | 1.0 | 4 % |
Other pro-alcohol | 6 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 5 | 0.2 | 17 % |