Presentation on theme: "Overview of the Fair Park Area Neighborhood Study Jim Murdoch University of Texas at Dallas December 11, 2012."— Presentation transcript:
Overview of the Fair Park Area Neighborhood Study Jim Murdoch University of Texas at Dallas December 11, 2012
Neighborhood Studies Place-based – The geographic boundaries do not change Longitudinal – The study is conducted over several years Interdisciplinary – Land use, well-being, change Trying to understand Neighborhood Effects Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods – Multiple neighborhoods – Focus on social processes Fair Park Area Neighborhood Study – One neighborhood – Focus on longitudinal change driven by economic development
Neighborhood Effects I like the apartment but not the neighborhood This location is really convenient I hate to move Mom because she has so many friends that live close to her Dont play in that park His neighborhood friends are a bad influence We meet at the end of the street and walk every morning Lets walk home from school together
The Study Design Quasi- Experimental – We consider the opening of the DART Green Line as a driver of neighborhood change – We hypothesize that the change will vary by distance from the stations – If this is true, outcomes such as childs adjustment in school that depend on neighborhood will be different depending on location relative to the stations – We need observations before and after the openings and at various distances – Observations from locations farther away serve as controls; we contrast the outcomes nearby to the controls to understand if neighborhood matters.
Characteristics in 2012 0.25 M0.25-0.5 MOther Single Family2869845124 Apartments123183 Vacant2878262689 Commercial103177463 Duplexes1568254 DISD Students 2205684265 HH In Study 2202451001
Data Components Built Environment Surveyphysical condition of parcels and phase blocks; 100% neighborhood sample Commercial Surveylocation of food sources, beer/liquor stores, financial services and pharmacies Brief Household Surveygeographically weighted sample; conducted door-to-door (Phases 1 and 3) Detailed Household Surveysample selected from participants who participated in the brief survey; conducted at field research station (Phases 2 and 4) Economic Experimentssample randomly selected from participants in the detailed survey; conducted at field research station (Phases 2 and 4) Physical Activity Objective Measuressample randomly selected form participants in the detailed survey (Phases 2 and 4)
Built Environment Measures Parcel conditions Face block conditions Existence of neighborhood amenities (trees, sidewalks) and nuisances (boarded/broken windows, unkempt lawns)
Household Survey Measures Demographics Time Usage Crime/Safety Perceptions Finance Health Children Neighborhood Perceptions Perceptions of self Housing Social Capital/Trust Transportation Phase 1 and 2 touch on all of these areas, with much more detail provided in Phase 2.
Economic Experiments Trust and Reciprocity Time Preferences Risk Preferences Comparative Dictator Solidarity
Recruitment and Data Collection 6-12 field researchers with knowledge of the community – Conducted all built environment and commercial surveys using tablet PCs equipped with GIS software – Conducted door-to-door brief surveys for Phase 1 and 3. – Recruited participants for Phase 2 and 4; and conducted detailed survey at field research station.
The field research station is located just a few blocks from the main intersection in the neighborhood. Transportation was provided when requested. Recruitment and Data Collection
Does Proximity to Train Stations Relate to Attendance in School? 1,223 DISD kids living in the same place in 2007 and 2012 58 live in the 0.25 mile treatment area 126 live in the 0.5 mile treatment area 38 where in third or fourth grade in May 2008 Attendance rate for this group increased by approximately 1% (difference-in-difference estimator) Attendance did not change significantly in any other group.
Does Proximity to Train Stations Relate to Property Values? Overall values significantly decreased with in the 0.25 mile treatment when compared to the control area (difference-in-difference estimate is - $18,270) No significant change in the 0.5 mile treatment. Single family resident values significantly decreased in both treatment areas when compared to the control area (difference-in- difference estimates are -$3,911 and -$1,315, respectively)