This project is an extension of my Capstone focusing on gentrification and parks in Nashville. To tackle the complexity and scale of the topic, I decided to transform my capstone into an ongoing portfolio. This platform serves as a means to capture insights, document my thought process, and foster learning and discussion.
If you're specifically interested in exploring the technical side of my project or accessing my Capstone dashboard, please click the link below:
This project explores the correlation between public spending and gentrification in southeastern states, with a focus on parks. I examine how public investments can contribute to neighborhood revitalization while also potentially displacing lower-income residents.
Gentrification is a complex process that has shaped urban landscapes in the region. Public spending, including investments in parks and green spaces, can attract private investment and higher-income residents, but it also presents challenges. Balancing the benefits of public spending with the need for affordable housing and social equity is crucial. By investigating this relationship, I aim to highlight the benefits and challenges of public spending in the gentrification process.
Note that Florida was removed from the list.
The CBSA shapefile defines metropolitan statistical areas with urbanized cores of 50,000 or more population and surrounding territories that exhibit social and economic integration through commuting ties.
In the southeastern states, there are a total of 270 metropolitan areas. These metropolitan areas, defined by CBSAs, cover approximately 60% of the region. This indicates that a significant portion of the southeastern states is comprised of densely populated urban areas.
The Trust for Public Land is a non-profit organization that creates parks and protects land for people. They have created a database of parks in the United States. The database includes information on the size, location, and amenities of each park.
In order to accurately represent park access across large communities, open public access is the key criteria for inclusion in our database. We include a wide variety of parks, trails, and open space, so long as there is no barrier to entry.
Examples of parks include:
Publicly-owned local, state, and national parks, trails, and open space
School with a joint-use agreement with the local government.
Privately-owned parks that are managed for full public use
Examples of parks don’t include:
Parks in gated communities
Private golf courses
Private cemeteries
School parks/playgrounds without active joint-use agreements
Zoos, museums, professional sports stadiums
Note that the dataset only includes urban parks
An urban park is a park in a city or other incorporated place that offers recreation and green space to residents. [Read more]
The United States is home to approximately 136,370 urban parks. Among these, around 14% of parks are located in the southeastern states, totaling 18,699 parks. This distribution amounts to an average of about 69 parks per metropolitan area in the region.
One of the major challenges I encountered during my research was the unavailability of park establishment dates, which were crucial for capturing the concurrent impact of parks on gentrification. Despite my attempts, including exploring government datasets and web scraping, I found that this information was simply not available for many parks.
In light of these challenges, I have decided to work with the available data and make the best use of it. I will focus on other park characteristics, such as size and specific features, to assess their potential relationship with gentrification. Additionally, I will adjust the scope of my research from a specific city (Nashville) to larger metropolitan areas. Starting with the largest metropolitan areas, I have observed that they tend to provide better open data resources. This approach allows me to scale up from my previous capstone while narrowing down the geographic focus to ensure more manageable and meaningful analysis.
Each dataset comes with its own set of advantages and limitations. Instead of dwelling on the limitations of the data available, I will compare various contenders and explain why I ultimately chose the CENSUS American Community Survey 5-year data.
First, I considered the ACS 1-year data, which closely resembles ACS 5-year. However, due to its larger margin of errors and limited geographic coverage, I decided against it.
Next, I explored the decennial CENSUS data, which offers comprehensive information. Yet, since extensive studies have already examined historical gentrification effects using this dataset, I sought a focus on the concurrent impact of parks on neighborhoods. Consequently, I determined that the ACS 5-year data would provide a more timely perspective.
I also considered the American Housing Survey (AHS), which includes some people-related data. However, its lack of detailed geographical information hindered my ability to illustrate the precise impact of parks on neighborhoods.
In conclusion, I chose the ACS 5-year data for its timeliness and ability to capture the contemporary influence of parks on gentrification patterns. This decision allows for a focused exploration of the topic at hand.
[WORKING ON IT]
What is tracts?
A census tract is a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county. Census tracts are designed to have a population of between 1,200 and 8,000 people. Tracts with more or less people than this are merged or split to maintain a consistent population size.
How are census tracts created?
The Census Bureau uses a variety of factors to create census tracts, including population size, geography, and socioeconomic characteristics. The Census Bureau updates census tracts every 10 years, after the decennial census.
The dataset comprises an extensive collection of approximately 25,000 variables, all derived from a concise set of 10 CENSUS questions. These variables can be aggregated at different geographic levels and disaggregated by subgroups, including sex, race, age, and more.