Using Video Cameras to Assess Physical Activity and Other Well-Being Behaviors in Urban Environments: Feasibility, Reliability, and Participant Reactivity Studies

Background: Unobtrusive observation is a promising method for assessing physical activity and other wellbeing behaviours (e.g., social interactions) in urban environments, without participant burden and biases associated with self-report. However, current methods require multiple in-person observers. Using video cameras instead could allow for more accurate observations at lower cost and with greater flexibility in scheduling.

Objective: This research aimed to test the feasibility of using stationary wireless video cameras to observe physical activity and other wellbeing behaviours, and assess its reliability and potential participant reactivity.
Methods: Across three cross-sectional studies, 148 hours of video recordings were collected from six outdoor public spaces in Manchester, UK. The videos were coded by three researchers using MOHAWk: a validated in-person observation tool for assessing physical activity, social interactions and people taking notice of the environment. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Intercept surveys were conducted to assess public awareness of the cameras and whether they altered their behaviour due to the presence of cameras.

Results: The 148 hours of video recordings were coded in 85 hours. Inter-rater reliability between independent coders was mostly ‘excellent’ (ICCs > 0.90; n = 36), with a small number of ‘good’ (ICCs > 0.75; n = 2), ‘moderate’ (ICCs = 0.5 – 0.75; n = 3) or ‘poor’ (< 0.5; n = 1) ICC values. Reliability decreased at night, particularly for coding ethnic group and social interactions, but remained mostly 'excellent' or 'good'. Intra-rater reliability within a single coder after a two-week interval was ‘excellent’ for all but one code, with one ‘good’ ICC value for assessing vigorous physical activity, indicating that the coder could reproduce similar results over time. Intra-rater reliability was generally similar during the day and night, apart from ICC values for coding ethnic group, which reduced from ‘excellent’ to ‘good’ at night. Intercept surveys with 86 public space users found that only five participants (5.8%) noticed the cameras used for this study. Importantly, all five said that they did not alter their behaviour as a result of noticing these cameras, therefore indicating no evidence of reactivity.

Conclusions: Camera-based observation methods are more reliable than in-person observations and do not produce participant reactivity often associated with self-report methods. This method requires less time for data collection and coding, while allowing for safe night-time observation without risk to research staff. This research is a significant first step in demonstrating the potential for camera-based methods to improve natural experimental studies of real-world environmental interventions. It also provides a rigorous foundation for developing more scalable automated computer vision algorithms for assessing human behaviours.