Houston Sustainability Indicators...Houston Sustainability Indicators - HSI Page 2 of 17 Objectives 1. Prioritize those issues that will most directly impact the region's future growth

Houston Sustainability Indicators Presented to Texas Health in All Policies Project – T-HiAPP June 2013 Lester King, PhD, AICP, LEED Sustainability Fellow Shell Center for Sustainability RICE UNIVERSITY LIKE us on Facebook.com/ShellCenterForSustainability (713) 703-8535 | [email protected] | http://shellcenter.rice.edu - View our latest NEWS.

Houston Sustainability Indicators - HSI –

Page 2 of 17

Objectives

1. Prioritize those issues that

will most directly impact the

region's future growth and

development.

2. Consider indicator

interrelatedness and develop

a model that allows prediction

of future trends and that

specifies actions to be taken

3. Show how GIS methodologies

can be used to enhance the

tracking of the indicators and

the modeling efforts.

4. Education

Considerations

Considerations


Page 3 of 17

OBJECTIVES 1. Prioritize those issues that

will most directly impact the

region's future growth and

development.

2. Consider indicator

interrelatedness and develop

a model that allows

prediction of future trends

and that specifies actions to

be taken

3. Show how GIS methodologies

can be used to enhance the

tracking of the indicators

and the modeling efforts.

4. Education

Research Plan


Page 4 of 17

Interdisciplinary – Consensus Building Advisory Board / Experts

John Anderson, PhD – Geologist

Research in Geosciences for 40 years

Stephen Klineberg, Phd –

Sociologist Houston Area Survey for 29 Years

Ron Soligo, PhD – Economist Research in Energy Economics

for 48 years

Jim Blackburn – Environmental

Lawyer Practice in Environmental Law for 30

years

Social Development Experts Michael Emerson, PhD Rice University Peter Brown Former City Council

Robert Bullard, PhD Texas Southern University

David Crossley Houston tomorrow

Marlene Gafrick Houston Planning Director

Rocaille Roberts, PhD Healthy Living Matters

Diane Schenke Greater East End Management District

Laura Solitare, PhD Texas Southern University

Ruth Lopez-Turley, PhD Rice University

Economic Development Experts Theresa DeBose Centerpoint Gavin Dillingham, PhD HISD George Granias METRO CEO Carol Lewis, PhD Texas Southern University

Laura Murillo Houston Hispanic Chambe Commerce

Qisheng Pan, PhD Texas Southern University Laura Spanjian Houston Sustainability Dire

Fred Welch Vice President Greater Hou Partnership

Environmental Development Experts Phil Bedient, Ph.D. Rice University Jun Chang Houston Water Director Thomas Colbert University of Houston

Aston Hinds, Ph.D. Port of Houston Environmen Director

Jim Lester, Ph.D. HARC Brandt Mannchen Sierra Club Martin Melosi, Ph.D. University of Houston Jeff Taebel HGAC C&E Director Matt Tejada, Ph.D. Air Alliance Houston


Page 5 of 17

Consensus Building


Page 6 of 17

Indicator Framework – BIG Ideas and Choices of Indicators Social Development

Economic Development

Environmental Development


Page 7 of 17

Generation 1 – Feasibility and Structure

Generation 2 – Holy Grail of Indicators

Generation 3 – Indicator Analysis


Page 8 of 17

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS ANALYSIS Systematic

• Data was collected for 88 neighborhoods in the City of Houston. • Apply Correlation Analysis to reduce the set of measured variables and to determine clusters of data.

• Neighborhoods were ranked according to the clusters.

Evaluation

• Neighborhoods were compared using descriptive statistics to show performance across the composite indicator set.

Maps and charts were produced for some of the indicators to show spatial distribution across the municipality.


Page 9 of 17

Normative Component Goals/ Sustainable Development Indicators Social Metrics Economic Metrics Environmental Metrics

SDI1 - Public Transportation Unemployment rate Ʊ % of commute trips made by transit Accessibility of transit system

SDI2 - Air Quality # of Complaints Median Housing Value Ʊ Air Pollution Exceeding federal standards per monitor

SDI3 - Government and Leadership

Ʊ Voter Turnout in municipal elections compared to number of registered voters

* Average household income by quantiles Access to public facilities (number of libraries, fire stations, police stations, schools, emergency medical)

SDI4 - Infrastructure Provision and Maintenance Number of complaints CIP funding Ʊ Survey of infrastructure conditions

SDI5 - Economic Development Unemployment rate Ʊ Jobs created Developable Land (vacant or abandoned, not park or protected area)

SDI6 - Roads and Congestion Ʊ Vehicle Miles Traveled Cost to operate Private Vehicle Housing Density SDI7 - Health Care **, Ʊ % of population with insurance Income of Health Care Workers Access to healthcare

SDI8 - Flood Management # of people living in flood zone areas ** Cost of flood insurance Ʊ Percentage of impervious covering (homes, apartments, parking lots etc.) in flood zone areas weighted by flooding probability.

SDI9 - Steward of Water Resources Gallons of water used per person Cost of water **, Ʊ Amount of water available

SDI10 - Clean City Percent Change in Crime Statistics Annually ** Cost of garbage pickup **, Ʊ Amount of litter

SDI11 – Suburban Development Population Growth Average household income by quintiles Ʊ Density and development of town centers in

the suburbs

SDI12 – Urban Development Population count **, Ʊ Property value increases inside the City of Houston vs. outside of the City Distance from CBD

SDI13 – Parking Number of vehicles Property Value **, Ʊ % of acreage devoted to surface parking compared to acreage of new development

SDI14 – Development Impact Ethnicity **, Ʊ Dollars devoted to infrastructure needed for new/infill development, i.e. drainage, streets, sidewalks, parks

Impact from subcenters

SDI15 – Long Range Planning Existence of Superneighborhood Council

**, Ʊ Dollar amount of CIP spending that relates to identified long term priorities of the City

Developable Land

SDI16 – Neighborhood Preservation

Ʊ Public view of the quality of life in their neighborhood Median Housing Value Access to k-12 Schools


Page 10 of 17

Systematic Component What are the factors which contribute the most to a heuristic understanding of sustainable development in the urban area based on the UrbanSD model?

Indicators Houston

Average Houston Wealthy

Houston Sprawl

High Travel

Dependent Communities

Underserved Communities

(20_000_34_999) .946 .073 .039 -.030 .173 -.016 (35_000_49_999) .894 .265 .096 -.014 .062 -.049 (POP) .871 .211 .190 .018 .202 -.105 (0_19_999) .801 -.048 -.057 -.051 .521 -.012 (50_000_74_999) .753 .465 .213 .017 .001 -.186 (WATCOST) .704 .355 -.076 .381 .015 .152 (Water Use) .662 .318 -.063 .326 -.101 .151 (HOUSESINFL) .573 .059 .167 -.050 .090 .174 (HEALTH INCOME) .523 .429 .084 .005 .006 -.209 (200_OR_MOR) .215 .880 .039 .121 -.199 -.025 (MEDIAN HOUSE

.372 .846 -.061 .086 -.097 -.050 (75_000_199_999) .459 .696 .280 .063 -.077 -.225 (PERCEPT SAFETY) .281 .559 .313 -.034 .262 .072 (HISPANIC) .217 -.539 -.175 -.120 -.099 -.074 (VOTERS) .032 .442 -.398 -.220 -.124 .049 (Size Area) .191 .167 .913 .010 -.026 .027 (DEVELOPABLE) -.011 .106 .912 .005 -.054 .072 (DIST TO CBD) .299 .081 .668 -.146 -.360 -.090 (HOU DENSITY) .471 .176 -.547 -.059 .034 -.169 (VMT) -.062 .012 -.039 .967 .068 .003 (VEHI COSTS) -.062 .012 -.039 .967 .068 .003 (VMT GRAVITY) .292 .259 .094 .827 -.009 -.206 (PER TRANSIT) .257 -.075 -.137 .145 .838 -.041 (PUBLIC FACIL) .317 .021 .075 .086 .763 .007 (K12) .544 .071 -.036 -.050 .659 .052 (UNEMPLOYMENT) -.338 -.270 -.194 -.048 .653 .099 (POPCHANGE) -.247 -.149 -.292 .006 .050 .056 (VEHICLES) -.348 -.120 -.322 -.031 .066 .046 (ACCESSHEALTH) .017 -.007 -.007 .083 .271 -.050 (JOBS) -.017 -.042 .134 .523 -.031 .099 (AIR POLLUTE) .062 -.027 .204 -.028 .041 .642 (BUS ACCESS) .099 .186 .503 .018 -.082 -.633 (CRIME) -.264 .152 .225 -.343 -.134 .459 (AIR COMPLAIN) -.066 .001 -.026 -.039 .047 .007


Page 11 of 17

How do neighborhoods rank according to the observed important factors?

• Score Neighborhoods

On Factors Sn# Neighborhood Region Houston

Average Houston Wealthy

Houston Sprawl High Travel Dependent

Communities Underserved Communities

22 Washington Avenue C -0.10447 (43) 0.31906 (18) 0.41235 (17) 0.15706 (18) 0.7749 (16) 0.23681 (23) 23 Afton/ River Oaks C -0.89348 (72) 3.15462 (3) -0.8186 (72) 0.01588 (20) -0.82861 (71) 0.37342 (17) 24 Montrose C 0.64732 (17) 1.61628 (8) -1.03083 (79) -0.03779 (26) 0.53925 (24) -0.31551 (64) 28 University Place C -0.87386 (71) 1.27384 (10) -1.17187 (82) 0.16393 (17) -0.64818 (61) 0.18558 (26) 32 Braeswood Place C -0.21007 (46) 1.07585 (12) -0.89394 (76) -0.52982 (82) -0.40633 (52) 0.06896 (34) 33 Medical Center C -1.02505 (78) -0.07754 (36) 0.1498 (25) 0.45225 (10) -0.73198 (68) -0.28107 (60) 34 Astrodome C 0.0139 (38) 0.34746 (17) -0.91642 (78) -0.09704 (34) -0.63619 (60) -0.62183 (73) 51 Northside Village C 0.3934 (25) -0.55245 (61) -0.25588 (45) -0.23235 (49) 1.88098 (3) -0.92168 (78) 52 Kashmere C -0.60306 (59) -0.14203 (41) -0.17777 (41) -0.39617 (69) 1.64092 (5) 0.00986 (39) 55 Greater Fifth Ward C -0.38629 (53) -0.06719 (35) 0.16221 (23) -0.24684 (51) 2.49294 (2) -0.18034 (51) 56 Denver Harbor C 0.05416 (36) -0.95379 (74) 0.06787 (26) -0.13192 (39) -0.08472 (38) -0.23579 (57) 57 Pleasantville C 0.07821 (35) -0.57521 (65) -0.55964 (64) 0.20176 (16) -1.64416 (84) 0.50858 (13) 60 Fourth Ward C -0.99018 (77) -0.44601 (55) -0.91532 (77) -0.32352 (61) -0.66113 (63) -0.14854 (49) 61 Downtown C -0.65379 (62) -1.101 (80) -0.42329 (49) 8.49329 (1) 0.14881 (32) 0.16255 (29) 62 Midtown C -1.3748 (81) 0.00006 (31) -1.14338 (80) 0.68827 (4) 0.59115 (20) -0.32853 (66) 63 Second Ward C -0.65229 (61) 0.1557 (24) -0.52426 (60) -0.52916 (81) 0.6731 (19) -0.2759 (59) 64 Greater Eastwood C -0.11613 (44) -0.68539 (66) -0.62374 (67) -0.2251 (46) -0.14538 (40) -0.14092 (47) 66 Binz C -0.97997 (76) 0.08597 (29) -1.17857 (83) -0.40505 (72) -0.57489 (57) -0.18166 (52) 67 Greater Third Ward C -1.62319 (83) 0.44145 (16) -0.83411 (74) 0.43846 (11) 4.58553 (1) -0.14858 (50) 68 Ost C -0.53132 (55) 0.13401 (27) -0.26935 (46) -0.31632 (59) 1.61626 (6) -0.32447 (65) 69 Gulfgate C -0.32106 (48) -1.19839 (82) -0.49095 (56) -0.01846 (24) -0.67054 (64) -0.58891 (72) 70 Pecan Park C 0.16701 (31) -1.16993 (81) -0.56733 (65) -0.26212 (53) -0.43902 (53) -0.90935 (77) 82 Magnolia C 0.2048 (27) -0.9726 (77) -0.08889 (34) -0.21972 (45) 0.32577 (28) -0.69267 (76) 83 Macgregor C -0.82033 (66) -0.02371 (33) -0.53454 (62) -0.01554 (23) 0.46357 (25) -0.12068 (44) 87 Greenway C 0.11045 (32) 1.65837 (7) -0.67629 (70) 0.87125 (3) -0.44852 (54) 0.16166 (30) 88 Lawndale C -0.4719 (54) -0.4294 (54) -0.52656 (61) -0.22866 (47) -0.11349 (39) 0.97191 (8) 58 Northshore E 0.1981 (28) -0.78308 (69) 0.21018 (20) -0.07176 (31) -0.27173 (47) 1.29762 (6) 59 Clinton Park E -1.67161 (84) 0.15612 (23) 0.00617 (30) -0.28076 (55) 0.55876 (23) 1.66397 (5) 2 Greenspoint N 0.65059 (16) -0.92845 (73) 0.24225 (19) 0.45658 (9) -0.69104 (65) 0.14119 (32) 6 Acres Home N -0.32397 (49) 0.04078 (30) 0.4154 (16) -0.2738 (54) 1.34134 (7) -0.19957 (55) 7 Hidden Valley N -0.91777 (74) -0.53642 (59) -0.38811 (48) -0.48654 (77) -1.19666 (78) -0.23514 (56) 12 Oak Forest N 1.08492 (10) 0.91811 (13) -0.08132 (32) -0.34175 (65) 0.81234 (15) 0.41056 (15) 13 Independence Hights N -0.58289 (58) -0.42872 (53) -0.53584 (63) -0.42858 (74) 0.6909 (18) 0.14242 (31) 15 Greater Heights N 1.21623 (8) 0.64656 (15) -0.28428 (47) -0.0673 (29) 1.09005 (10) -0.34088 (68)


Page 12 of 17

Neighborhood Ranking

Ranking of Houston Average Factor

Rank Region Sn# Neighborhood 1 W 25 Alief 2 W 26 Sharpstown 3 W 27 Gulfton 4 W 20 Woodlake 5 N 45 Northside 6 SW 36 Greater Fondren 7 W 21 Greater Uptown 8 N 15 Greater Heights 9 S 78 Greater Hobby 10 N 12 Oak Forest 75 NW 53 El Dorado 76 C 66 Binz 77 C 60 Fourth Ward 78 C 33 Medical Center 79 S 35 South main 80 S 77 Minnetex 81 C 62 Midtown 82 NW 50 Settegast 83 C 67 Greater Third

84 E 59 Clinton Park

Income group $20,000-$34,999 (0.946); Income group $35,000-$49,999 (0.894);

Population (0.871); Income group $0-$19,999 (0.801); Income group $50,000-$74,999

(0.753); Water Costs (0.704); Water Usage (0.662); Houses in Flood Zone (0.573); Health

Sector Income (0.523).

Ranking of Houston Wealthy Factor

Rank Region Sn# Neighborhood 1 W 21 Greater Uptown 2 W 16 Memorial 3 C 23 Afton/ River Oaks 4 SE 81 Clear lake 5 N 43 Kingwood 6 W 17 Eldridge 7 C 87 Greenway 8 C 24 Montrose 9 W 18 Briarforest 10 C 28 University Place 75 W 27 Gulfton 76 SE 79 Edgebrook 77 C 82 Magnolia 78 W 65 Harrisburg 79 NW 11 Langwood 80 C 61 Downtown 81 C 70 Pecan Park 82 C 69 Gulfgate 83 W 25 Alief 84 W 29 Westwood

Income group $200,000 and above (0.880); Median Housing value (0.846);

Income group $75,000 - $199,999 (0.696); Percent Safety (0.559); Percent

Hispanic (-0.539); and Percent Voters (0.442).


Page 13 of 17

Ranking of Houston Sprawl Factor

Rank Region Sn# Neighborhood 1 W 17 Eldridge 2 W 9 Addicks 3 N 42 IAH 4 N 43 Kingwood 5 NW 44 Lake Houston 6 SE 81 Clear lake 7 S 40 Central Southwest 8 SE 80 South Belt 9 S 78 Greater Hobby 10 S 77 Minnetex 75 SE 74 Park Place 76 C 32 Braeswood Place 77 C 60 Fourth Ward 78 C 34 Astrodome 79 C 24 Montrose 80 C 62 Midtown 81 W 21 Greater Uptown 82 C 28 University Place 83 C 66 Binz 84 NW 14 Lazy Brook

Acreage (0.913); Developable (0.912); Distance to CBD (0.668); Housing Density (-0.547).

Ranking of Houston High Travel Factor

Rank Region Sn# Neighborhood 1 C 61 Downtown 2 W 21 Greater Uptown 3 C 87 Greenway 4 C 62 Midtown 5 SE 81 Clear lake 6 NW 4 Fairbanks 7 W 26 Sharpstown 8 W 16 Memorial 9 N 2 Greenspoint 10 C 33 Medical Center 75 W 10 Spring Branch West 76 N 47 East Little York 77 N 7 Hidden Valley 78 S 72 South Park 79 NW 84 Spring Shadows 80 S 76 South Acres 81 C 63 Second Ward 82 C 32 Braeswood Place 83 SW 31 Meyerland Area 84 SE 74 Park Place

VMT (0.967); Vehicle Costs (0.967); and VMT Gravity (0.827).


Page 14 of 17

Regional Assessment of Neighborhoods Regional Trends in Local Study

Region # Neighborhoods %Positive Trend %Negative Trend C 26 15 7 E 2 0 20 N 12 12 7 NE 4 0 20 NW 9 2 13 S 10 8 10 SE 5 16 20 SW 4 10 5 W 13 11 14

Table was created by calculating the percentage of times neighborhoods

showed up in the top or bottom of the factors by region. In some cases the

bottom of the factor may have been interpreted as the positive trend such as

in the Sprawl Factor.


Page 15 of 17

Findings

• We took 39 seemingly disparate indicators and demonstrated that they are highly correlated in 6 main value laden

ways with respect to the city application.

• The western side of the city is doing better on the ‘Houston Average Factor’ cluster. In contrast the central portion of

the city is not doing as well. This factor can be used to demonstrate why investment in the central core of Houston is

essential.

• The fact that 4 central neighborhoods show up in both the top and bottom of the Weathy Factor suggests an acute

segregation of persons by income and race in central Houston. It also shows that increases in civic participation in

terms of ‘Voting’ is integral to increased neighborhood performance.


Page 16 of 17

Reporting


Page 17 of 17

Conclusion

• How to take big data on the city and systematically develop knowledge and understanding of development using a

single model.

• The research also shows how the precepts of sustainable development can enhance understanding of development.

Relationships in urban development measures can be combined in a systematic format under the rubric of

sustainability.

• How to target investment for many of the various functions of government and systems in the urban area.

• How systems are interrelated and how those interrelations have impacts on neighborhoods.

• How to categorize and compare various areas in the city. Separating areas by population size or income is a socio-

economic historical approach to managing the complexity of the city. The research procedure offers a much more

efficient and systematic procedure.

Find the Houston Sustainability Indicators Project @ - http://shellcenter.rice.edu

Documents

Houston Sustainability Indicators...Houston Sustainability Indicators - HSI Page 2 of 17 Objectives 1. Prioritize those issues that will most directly impact the region's future growth