UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER Conference on Performance Measure for...

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONTTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER

Conference on Performance Measure for Transportation and Livable Communities

NATHAN P. BELZ, M.S., E.I. University of Vermont, Transportation Research Center

Burlington, VT 05405-1757Phone: (802) 656-5539

Email: [email protected]

LANCE A. JENNINGSUniversity of Vermont, Transportation Research Center

Burlington, VT 05405-1757Phone: (802) 656-5538

Email: [email protected]

Session 3: Small Urban and Rural Livable Communities September 7, 2011

Measuring Livability in Small Urban and Rural Communities with Disaggregate DataA Case Study of Chittenden County, Vermont

Burlington


2BACKGROUND

How do we deal with what to include versus what data are available and how to appropriately “combine” that data?

(Elephant in the room… )


BACKGROUND

Importance of Geographic Scale

1. Boundaries2. Units

Aggregate scale induces unequal representation

i.e. towns, block groups, blocks

3


BACKGROUNDSeven Capitals for Livable Communities

4

ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMYSOCIETY

LIVABILITY

Infrastructure Environmental

Political

Fin

anci

al

Human

So

cial

Cul

tura

l


5BACKGROUND

1. Infrastructure (built capital)a. Sidewalksb. Roadsc. Buildingsd. Land use and land cover

2. Environmentala. Land coverb. Parks and recreationc. Green spaced. Nature trails, bike trails, shared-use pathse. Conservation organizationsf. Ecosystems (water quality, fragile habitats, etc.)

Seven Capitals for Livable Communities


6BACKGROUND

3. Politicala. Voting districts, voting turnoutb. Satisfaction with elected officialsc. Allocation and utilization of funds

4. Financiala. Tax revenue/budgetb. Household incomec. Property valued. Businesses, jobs, employmente. Amount of sales



7BACKGROUND

5. Humana. Schools and educationb. Job training centersc. Mortality rates, median age, BMI, “health indicators”d. “Top Ten” lists

6. Sociala. Connectedness, trust, “knowing your neighbor”b. Supplementation by “electronic social networks”c. Utilization of park and ridesd. Community events



8BACKGROUND

7. Culturala. Churchesb. Race and ethnicity (diversity ≠ livability)c. Proximity of generations with a familyd. Transfer of knowledgee. Events/fairs/paradesf. Celebrating the history of a town (preservation, historical register, etc.)g. Designated “villages” and “downtowns”



9BACKGROUND

CNN Best Places to Live1

America’s Best Small Towns

1 Louisville, CO 2 Milton, MA 3 Solon, OH 4 Leesburg, VA 5 Papillion, NE 6 Hanover, NH 7 Liberty, MO 8 Middleton, WI 9 Mukilteo, WA 10 Chanhassen, MN

“TEN BEST”

1(http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2011/)

RelocateAmerica.com2 Top Overall Places to Live

1 Austin, TX2 Grand Rapids, MI3 Boulder, CO4 Raleigh, NC5 Dallas, TX6 Greenville, SC7 Augusta, GA8 Boise, ID9 Omaha, NE10 Oklahoma City, OK

2(http://www.relocateamerica.com/top-100-cities/)


10BACKGROUND

Parenting.com 3 Best Cities for Families

1 Washington, DC2 Austin, TX3 Boston, MA4 Minneapolis, MN5 Des Moines, IA6 Madison, WI7 Honolulu, HI8 Omaha, NE9 Seattle, WA10 Louisville, KY

“TEN BEST”

3 (http://www.parenting.com/article/2011-best-cities-to-live)

Sperling’s Best Places4 Best Cities to Relocate to

1 Charlottesville, VA2 Santa Fe, NM 3 San Luis Obispo, CA 4 Santa Barbara, CA 5 Honolulu, HI 6 Ann Arbor, MI 7 Atlanta, GA 8 Asheville, NC 9 Reno, NV 10 Corvallis, OR

4 (http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/bestplaces05.aspx)


11BACKGROUND

Men’s Health5 Best Cities for Men

1 Madison, WI 2 Fargo, ND 3 Plano, TX 4 Burlington, VT 5 San Jose, CA 6 Lincoln, NE 7 Austin, TX 8 Aurora, CO 9 Virginia Beach, VA 10 Seattle, WA

“TEN BEST”

5 (http://www.menshealth.com/health/best-cities-men-2011/page/2)

EIU Liveability Ranking6 Liveability Report for the US

1 Pittsburgh, PA2 Honolulu, HI3 Washington, D.C.4 Chicago, IL5 Atlanta, GA6 Miami, FL7 Detroit, MI8 Boston, MA9 Seattle, WA10 Minneapolis, MN

6 (http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=The_Global_Liveability_Report&rf=0)


12BACKGROUND

Gallup-Healthways Well Being Index7

Large Cities

1 Washington, DC2 Austin, TX3 San Jose, CA4 Seattle, WA5 San Francisco, CA6 Minneapolis, MN7 Boston, MA8 San Diego, CA9 Raleigh, NC10 Hartford, CT

“TEN BEST”

7 (http://www.well-beingindex.com/default.asp)

Mid-Sized Cities

1 Boulder, CO2 Lincoln, NE3 Fort Collins, CO4 Provo, UT5 Honolulu, HI6 Madison, WI7 Cedar Rapids, IA8 Gainesville, FL9 Bridgeport, CT10 Peoria, IL

Small Cities

1 Burlington, VT2 Olympia, WA3 Bellingham, WA4 Bremerton, WA5 Topeka, KS6 Barnstable Town, MA7 Charlottesville, VA8 Kennewick, WA9 Medford, OR10 Amarillo, TX


13BACKGROUND

What is livable?

vs.

What do people think is livable?

Morals

Interest

Identity

X

Y

Z


14BACKGROUND

Sustainable communities

Quality of life

Social capital


15BACKGROUND

Built Environment

Ability to reach destinations

Frequency of walking

Frequency of chance

encounters

Enhancement of social ties

Higher level of social

connectedness

SOCIAL CAPITAL


16USING DISAGGREGATE DATASidewalks


19

More sidewalks = better perception of sidewalk infrastructure

USING DISAGGREGATE DATA


20USING DISAGGREGATE DATA


21USING DISAGGREGATE DATAHouseholds


22USING DISAGGREGATE DATAHouseholds


23USING DISAGGREGATE DATAGroceries


26USING DISAGGREGATE DATAHealth Care


27USING DISAGGREGATE DATAHealth Care


28USING DISAGGREGATE DATAEmergency Response


29USING DISAGGREGATE DATAEmergency Response


CONCLUSIONS 30

Representation on aggregate levels

Proximity to emergency response induces greater level

of comfort

Higher presence of sidewalks

(walkability, safety, biking)

vs.


31FUTURE and CONTINUING WORK

Explore spatial relationships between livability and the following factors:

SOCIAL CAPITAL

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR

DAILY NEEDS


FUTURE and CONTINUING WORK 32

Social ComponentGeographic Scale

based Normalization

“Big Picture” Policy Take-Away

1. Consideration of spatial AND temporal variations in livability2. Importance of finer resolution data to identify isolation3. Data needs and deficiencies in our knowledge of the social component4. Importance of compatibility across data for spatial integration


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 33

Collaboration with: James Sullivan, P.E.Research Engineer, UVM TRC

Data and Information from: Vermont Center for Geographic Information

New England Transportation Institute (NETS)

US Department of Transportation (NHTS)

Vermont Agency of Transportation, Chittenden County MPO, and UVM Transportation Research Center (NHTS Add-On)

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER Conference on Performance Measure for...

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER Conference on Performance Measure for...