Advertisement

Identifying and Using Key Indicators to Determine Neighborhood Types in Different Regions

  • Harutyun Shahumyan
  • Chao Liu
  • Brendan Williams
  • Gerrit Knaap
  • Daniel Engelberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10406)

Abstract

Identification of a key indicators capturing essential patterns in a region can be a cost-effective solution for neighborhood classification and targeted policy making. Yet, such a “core” set of indicators can vary from region to region. Here, we define set of indicators measuring education, housing, accessibility, and employment which can be used to classify neighborhoods. We test these indicators in two study regions: the Baltimore Metropolitan Area and the Greater Dublin Region. We apply factor analysis to distill indicators to smaller sets that capture differences in neighborhood types in terms of social, economic, and environmental dimensions. We use factors loadings in cluster analyzes to identify unique neighborhood types spatially. Comparison of the core set of indicators and clustering patterns for case study regions sheds new lights on the important factors for both regions. The proposed approach will help compare variations in neighborhood types between and within different regions internationally.

Keywords

Indicators Factor analysis Cluster analysis Baltimore Dublin 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship (GeoSInPo) within the 7th European Community Framework Program.

References

  1. 1.
    Sawicki, D.S., Flynn, P.: Neighborhood indicators - a review of the literature and an assessment of conceptual and methodological issues. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 62(2), 165–183 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dluhy, M., Swartz, N.: Connecting knowledge and policy: the promise of community indicators in the United States. Soc. Indic. Res. 79(1), 1–23 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Song, Y., Knaap, G.: Quantitative classification of neighborhoods: the neighborhoods of new single-family homes in the Portland metropolitan area. J. Urban Des. 12(1), 1–24 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shahumyan, H., et al.: Regional development scenario evaluation through land use modelling and opportunity mapping. Land 3(3), 1180–1213 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, C., Knaap, E., Knaap, G.: Reclassification of sustainable neighborhoods: an opportunity indicator analysis in baltimore metropolitan area. In: AESOP-ACSP Joint Congress, Dublin, Ireland (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reece, J., et al.: The geography of opportunity: mapping to promote equitable community development and fair housing in King county, WA. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, Ohio State University, US (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reece, J., et al.: People, Place and Opportunity: Mapping Communities of Opportunity in Connecticut. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race And Ethnicity, Ohio State University, US (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Couch, C., Leontidou, L., Petschel-Held, G.: Urban sprawl in Europe: landscapes, land-use change & policy. Real Estate Issues, xix, 273 p. Blackwell, Oxford, Malden (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    NSS: National spatial strategy for Ireland 2002–2020: People, Places and Potential, D.o.t.E.a.L. Government, Editor, 160 p. Stationery Office, Dublin (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CSO Regional Population Projections 2016–2031. CSO statistical release (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th edn. Sage Publications Ltd., UK (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S.: Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson Education Inc., Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hair, J., et al.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorsuch, R.L.: Factor Analysis. Hillsdale Erlbaum, Newark (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Comrey, A.L.: A First Course in Factor Analysis. Academic Press, New York (1973)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaiser, H.F.: An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1), 31–36 (1974)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaiser, H.F.: The application of electronic-computers to factor-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 20(1), 141–151 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cattell, R.B.: The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1(2), 245–276 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horn, J.L.: A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor-analysis. Psychometrika 30(2), 179–185 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costello, A.B., Osborne, J.W.: Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 10(7), 1–9 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiedler, J.A., Mcdonald, J.J.: Market figmentation clustering on factor scores versus individual variables. In: Second Annual Advanced Research Techniques Forum, pp. 118–129 (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mooi, E., Sarstedt, M.: A Concise Guide to Market Research: The process. Data and Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dolnicar, S., Grun, B.: Challenging factor-cluster segmentation. J. Travel Res. 47(1), 63–71 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harutyun Shahumyan
    • 1
  • Chao Liu
    • 2
  • Brendan Williams
    • 1
  • Gerrit Knaap
    • 2
  • Daniel Engelberg
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental PolicyUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.National Center for Smart GrowthUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations