Institute for the Environment Senior Capstone 2007...
Transcript of Institute for the Environment Senior Capstone 2007...
Community Sustainability: Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Institute for the EnvironmentSenior Capstone 2007 1
Chelsea BrinerKatie BurkeMark DarwinMonica FoleyThanveer GadwalSpencer Leach
Steven LoyJaime NeillJaymin PatelNitin SekarLindsey WitmerAnna Wyatt
22
Establish a model with which communities can self-assess their sustainabilityApply the model to Chapel Hill to show how the system works and to asses the town’s sustainabilityVirtual North Carolina◦ Comprehensive list of indicators Promote understanding of the importance of sustainability
3
Sustainability – Meeting the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfill theirs◦ Evaluated the three sides of sustainability: Environmental
Health, Social Equity, and EconomicsStudy Area – The goal was to evaluate the sustainability of Chapel Hill, NC. Often data not available for specific indicators, so Orange County, NC data was substituted
4
5
Indicators were chosen that measure sustainability of Chapel HillFor each indicator, a metric was chosen that measures the status of its indicator
6
7
Environmental Health Economic Vitality Social Equity
Ozone Warning Days Community Wealth
Health Status
Water Use Unemployment Rate
Health Insurance
Green Space Housing Costs Crime Rate
Waste Reduction Rate Access to Public Transportation
Transportation Mode Breakdown
7
8
Dimension Indicator MetricEnvironmental Health
Ozone Warning Days Air Quality Index
Water Use Gallons per person per dayGreen Space Acres per 1000 residentsWaste Reduction Rate % Reduction since 1991Transportation Mode Breakdown
% non-SOV use journey to work commute
Economic Vitality Community Wealth Median household income ($)Unemployment Rates % unemployed (ratio black:white)Housing Affordability % who spend >35% of income on housing
Social Equity Health Status % with no unhealthy days per month (ratio other:white)
Health Insurance % with health insurance (ratio other:white)Crime Rate Crime acts per 100,000 peoplePublic Transport Access % within 1/4 miles of bus stop
8
9
Environmental Health
Weight Economic Vitality Weight Social Equity Weight
Ozone Warning Days
0.15 Community Wealth
0.40 Health Status 0.30
Water Use 0.30 Unemployment Rate
0.30 Health Insurance 0.30
Green Space 0.05 Housing Affordability
0.30 Crime Rate 0.20
Waste Reduction Rate
0.25 Access to Public Transportation
0.20
Transportation Mode Breakdown
0.25
Total: 1.00 Total: 1.00 Total: 1.00
9
10
Dimension No. Indicators WeightEnvironmental
Health5 5/12 = 0.42
Economic Vitality 3 3/12 = 0.25Social Equity 4 4/12 = 0.33
Total: 12/12 =1
10
11
Indicator Metric 1 2 3 4 5Ozone warnings Days per year 301-500 201-300 101-200 51-100 0-50Water use Gallons per person per day >370 221-370 171-220 61-170 <60Green space Acres per 1000 residents <10 10--30 30-50 50-70 >70Waste Reduction Rate % reduction since 1991 <15 15-29 30-44 45-60 >60Transp. Mode Breakdown % non-SOV use journey to work commu <15% 15-34% 35-54% 55-75% >75%
Community Wealth Median household income ($) <30459 30459 - 38148 38149-53893 53894-77643 >77644Unemployment Rates % unemployed (ratio black:white) >3.00 2.50-3.00 1.70-2.49 1.10-1.69 1.00-1.09Housing Affordabil i ty % spend >35% of income on housing >32.6% 30.9-32.6% 27.5-30.8% 25.7-27.4% <25.7%
Health Status % with no unhealthy days per month <54% 55-69% 70-79% 80-89% >90%Health Insurance % with health insurance <54% 55-69% 70-79% 80-89% >90%Crime Rate Crime acts per 100,000 people >8,000 5001-8000 5000-3001 3000-1001 1001-0Access to Public Transport % within 0.25 miles of bus stop <30% 30-50% 50-70% 70-90% >90%
11
12
Dimension Weight Indicator Metric Actual Value Ind. Weight Score Weight*ScoreSocial Equity 0.33 Health Status % w/no unhealthy days 80.4 0.30 4 1.2
(ratio other:white) 0.87Health Insurance % w/ health insurance 84.5 0.30 4 1.2Crime Crime acts per 100,000 people 4103.3 0.20 3 0.6Public Trans. Access % w/ in 0.25 mi. of bus stop 90 0.20 5 1
Social Equity Score: 4
Economic Vital i ty 0.25 Community Wealth Median household income ($) 39140 0.40 3 1.2Unemployment Rates % unemployed (ratio black:white) 2.67 0.30 2 0.6Housing Affordabil i ty % spend >35% income on housing 25.68 0.30 4 1.2
Economic Vital i ty Score: 3
Environment 0.42 Ozone warnings Days per year 37.4 0.15 5 0.75Water use Gallons per person per day 145 0.30 4 1.2Green space Acres per 1000 residents 21 0.05 2 0.1Waste Reduction Rate % reduction since 1991 45 0.25 4 1Transp. Mode Breakdown % non-SOV use journey to work com 56 0.25 4 1
Environment Score: 4.05
Total Score: 3.77
12
13
Environment
Ozone Warning Days
• Average Air Quality Index from 2001-2007 for Orange County was 37.375.
• Orange County Scores a 5 on the Air Quality Index
• Air Quality Index is a measure of atmospheric pollution levels.
Data Source: “Air Qualtiy Index Report". US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monaqi.html?st~NC~North%20Carolina>.
Score
Air Quality Index14
Water Use• Orange County water
consumption is 145gpd1(2000)
• OWASA2 data indicate values of 121gpd(2004) and 108gpd(2005), respectively.
• US per capita water consumption is 166gpd(2000).
• Water consumption in Netherlands is only 27gpd.
Data Source: 1 USGS: Data files for Estimated Use of Water in the United States, 2000. 09 July 2000. United States Geological Survey. 10 Oct. 2007. <http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/ 2000/index.html>
2 Fiscal Year 2005 Sustainability Report. 12 Oct. 2005. Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). 10 Oct. 2007. <http://www.owasa.org/pages/ Sustain_Report_Final_Version_10_12_05.pdf>
Score
Gallons per person per day
Min 1st quartile Median 2nd quartile Max55 165 218 367 29737
Data Calculated for all counties in NC
15
Green Space
• The acres of greenspaceper 1000 residents for Chapel Hill was 21
• This gives a score of 2 for this indicator through the AHP system.
• The amount of greenspaceconsisted of parks and trails within the city limits
Data Source: Chapel Hill Community Indicators
Score
Acres per 1,000 residents16
Waste Reduction Rate
• Orange County’s current waste reduction rate is 45%
• This gives a score of 4 for this indicator
• In 1991-1992, the average person threw away 1.36 tons of garbage every year – this has been reduced to 0.75 tons in 2004-2005
Data Sources:http://www.co.orange.nc.us/recycling/stats.asp OCDSWM: Blair Pollock, Muriel Williman
Score
% tons of waste recycled17
Transportation Mode Breakdown
• Percentage of non-SOV journey to work travel by person.
• Chapel Hill’s value is 56%.• The national average is 24%.• Carbon Reduction
Programme (CRed) recommends a 60% reduction in carbon emissions.
• Score of 4 is a 60% reduction in SOV use.
Data Source: 2005 Chapel Hill Data Book: Section 7 Transportation. Town of Chapel Hill. http://www.townofchapelhill.org/DocumentView.asp?DID=569Journey to Work: 2000. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf
Score
% non-SOV use journey towork commute by person 18
Environment
Ozone Warning Days Water Use
Transportation Mode Breakdown
Waste ReductionGreen Space
Overall 4.1
19
20
Economic Vitality
Community Wealth• The Median Household
Income of Chapel Hill was $39140 in 2000.
• Chapel Hill scores a 3 on Median Household Income.
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American FactFinder. http://factfinder.census.gov
Score
Median household income (dollars)
Chapel Hill Income Distribution
0500
1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500
>1010
-14.9
15-24
.925
-34.9
35-49
.950
-74.9
75-99
.910
0-149.9
150-1
99.9>20
0
Household Income
Hou
seho
lds
21
Housing Affordability
• Significant because of links to economic vitality in the community– disposable income– ability of residents to obtain
loans • 25.7% of Orange County
residents spend over 35% of their income on housing
• This gives a score of 4 for affordability of housing
Data Source: US Census Bureau
Score
% who spend >35% of income onhousing 22
Unemployment Rate
• Unemployment Rate Blacks: 12.3%Whites: 4.6% Hispanics: ?Overall: 5.5%
• Orange County Scores a 2• OC: ratio 2.67
US: ratio 2.45NC: ratio 2.38
Data Source: 2006 American Community Survey. US Census Bureau. <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_lang=en&_ts+144684179550>.
Score
% unemployed (ratio black:white)
CalculationsRatio black:white
12.3%/4.6% = 2.6723
Economic Vitality
Housing Affordability
Unemployment Rate
Community Wealth
24
25
Social Equity
Crime Rate
• The Index Crime Rate for Orange County was 4,103.30 in 2006.
• Orange County Scores a 3 on Index Crime Rate
Data Source: “North Carolina Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". NC SBI. <http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/Default.htm>
Score
Reported Index Crimes per100,000 people 26
Public Transportation Access
• Percent of Chapel Hill living within ¼ mile1 of a bus stop
• Chapel Hill’s City-Planner estimates over 90%2-- a 5 on our scale
• Data not available currently; we recommend it be gathered
Data Source: 1. Ewing, R (2000). Pedestrian and transit-friendly design. Third National Access Management Conference. Federal Highway Administration.2. Bonk, David. Personal communication. November 6, 2007.
Score
% within ¼ miles of bus stop27
Health Status
• During the past 30 days, for about how many days did poor physical or mental health keep you from doing your usual activities, such as self-care, work, or recreation?
• % who answered “none” in Orange County = 80.4
• Equity ratio other:whiteanswering “none” = 0.87
• Overall Score = 4/5
Data Source: North Carolina Center for Health Statistics, www.schs.state.nc.us
Score
% with no unhealthy days per year, equity ratio, respectively 28
Health Insurance
• Orange County data used for Chapel Hill
• Orange County health insurance coverage: 84.5%
• Chapel Hill Score: 4• 49.4% of non-white v.
94.3% of white residence have health insurance
• Health care debts are the number one cause of bankruptcies
Data Source: North Carolina Center for Health Statistics. 2006 data
Score
% with health insurance29
Social Equity
Public Transportation Access
Health InsuranceHealth Status
Overall 4.0
30
Chapel Hill’s Overall Sustainability Score
31
32
33
34
• AHP score of 3.8 out of 5
• Improve specific, low scoring indicators
• Further develop AHP process
35
• Complex task, pilot project
• Mix of ideal and available indicators
• Value now, but will grow with use and time
• A comprehensive evaluation is feasible and could serve as a valuable tool
36