Overview of the Fair Park Area Neighborhood Study

Jim MurdochUniversity 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”• “Don’t play in that park”• “His neighborhood friends are a bad influence”• “We meet at the end of the street and walk every

morning”• “Let’s walk home from school together”

Fair Park Area Neighborhood

Census Data: 2000 versus 2010

Note: Census geographies do not correspond exactly to the study area.

Census Data 2000 versus 2010

Note: Census geographies do not correspond exactly to the study area.

DISD Data: Fall 2007 versus Fall 2012

DISD had 173,444 Students in 2007 and 174,351 Students in 2012 (+0.5%)

FP Area had 4,706 Students in 2007 and 4,485 Students in 2012 (-4.7%)

DISD Data: Fall 2007 versus Fall 2012

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 child’s 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 M 0.25-0.5 M Other

Single Family 286 984 5124

Apartments 12 31 83

Vacant 287 826 2689

Commercial 103 177 463

Duplexes 15 68 254

DISD Students 220 568 4265

HH In Study 220 245 1001

Data Components

• Built Environment Survey—physical condition of parcels and phase blocks; 100% neighborhood sample

• Commercial Survey—location of food sources, beer/liquor stores, financial services and pharmacies

• Brief Household Survey—geographically weighted sample; conducted door-to-door (Phases 1 and 3)

• Detailed Household Survey—sample selected from participants who participated in the brief survey; conducted at field research station (Phases 2 and 4)

• Economic Experiments—sample randomly selected from participants in the detailed survey; conducted at field research station (Phases 2 and 4)

• Physical Activity Objective Measures—sample randomly selected form participants in the detailed survey (Phases 2 and 4)

Study Timeline

2009

2010

2011

2012

Built Environment SurveyPhase 1 (Brief survey)Commercial SurveyPhase 2 (Detailed survey &

experiments)

Continue Phase 2 Built Environment Survey

Phase 3 (Brief Survey, repeated)

Phase 4 (Detailed Survey & Experiments, repeated)

Finish Phase 4; Built Environment

Survey Commercial

Survey

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 PC’s 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)

Our studies

• http://Ncri.utdallas.edu