Descriptive Title: Neighborhood completeness indicator for key public services

Geographic Unit of Analysis: Point

Neighborhood completeness indicator for key public services (2008)
NeighborhoodSquare MilesChildcare CenterCommunity CenterCommunity GardenLibraryOpen Space & Park Less Than 1/2 AcreParks 1/2 Acre or LargerPost OfficePublic Art InstallationsPublic Health FacilityPublic SchoolRec Facility
Bayview/Hunter's Point 4.9 13 8 3 1 54 18 0 5 2 7 7
Bernal Heights 1.2 7 5 8 1 26 5 1 2 3 3 2
Castro/Upper Market 0.9 5 3 3 1 6 5 0 1 2 5 3
Chinatown 0.1 8 7 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 2
Excelsior 1.6 6 4 2 0 3 6 1 1 2 6 3
Financial District/South Beach 0.7 7 5 0 0 15 5 2 14 0 1 0
Glen Park
Golden Gate Park 1.7 0 1 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 18
Haight Ashbury 0.8 6 2 0 1 1 5 1 0 5 2 1
Hayes Valley
Inner Richmond 1.3 11 5 1 1 3 6 2 4 1 5 4
Inner Sunset 1.3 9 1 2 1 5 3 5 2 1 4 0
Japantown
Lakeshore 3.6 7 2 0 1 20 8 3 4 0 2 5
Lincoln Park
Lone Mountain/USF
Marina 1.0 4 2 1 1 5 6 2 1 0 3 4
McLaren Park
Mission 1.7 22 34 7 1 8 9 1 22 5 7 9
Mission Bay
Nob Hill 0.4 4 4 1 1 6 2 0 3 3 2 3
Noe Valley 0.9 6 1 1 1 7 2 3 3 0 3 2
North Beach 0.6 5 2 2 1 8 5 1 4 2 3 2
Oceanview/Merced/Ingleside
Outer Mission 1.4 7 4 1 1 9 5 0 4 3 5 4
Outer Richmond 1.4 12 6 0 1 0 6 1 3 1 4 3
Pacific Heights 0.7 4 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0
Portola
Potrero Hill 1.4 6 3 4 1 18 5 0 1 1 4 2
Presidio 2.4 3 0 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 1
Presidio Heights 0.4 6 5 0 0 1 3 1 0 4 2 2
Russian Hill 0.5 3 2 0 0 8 3 0 1 1 3 1
San Francisco 47.1 257 183 52 24 322 186 44 140 65 114 113
Seacliff 0.7 1 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 1
South of Market 2.1 11 13 4 0 47 5 0 12 5 3 1
Sunset/Parkside
Tenderloin
Treasure Island 0.9 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Twin Peaks 0.7 1 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 2 2 1
Visitacion Valley 1.5 12 7 2 1 15 8 1 1 1 8 8
West of Twin Peaks 1.9 5 4 0 1 2 10 3 2 0 5 4
Western Addition 1.5 19 18 4 1 9 9 0 7 6 8 7

Why Is This An Indicator Of Health and Sustainability?

Being within walking distance of neighborhood goods and services promotes physical activity, reduces vehicle trips and miles traveled, and increases neighborhood cohesion and safety.a By reducing vehicle trips and miles traveled, dense neighborhoods with diverse and mixed land uses can also reduce air and noise pollution, which subsequently impacts associated respiratory and noise-related health conditions. According to the US Green Building Council, research has shown that "living in a mixed-use environment within walking distance of shops and services results in increased walking and biking, which improve human cardiovascular and respiratory health and reduce the risk of hypertension and obesity.b A recent study (2007) in New York revealed that low-income non-white population are at a disadvantage when trying to access daily goods and services. There is a stronger relationship for black populations than Latino populations but both populations have less access.c Finally, children with low neighborhood amenities or those lacking neighborhood access to sidewalks or walking paths, parks or playgrounds, or recreation or community centers had 20 to 45 percent higher odds of obesity and overweight, compared with children who had access to these amenities. The impact of the built environment was particularly strong for younger children (ages 10 to 11) and for girls. Girls, ages 10 to 11, living in neighborhoods with the fewest amenities had 121 to 276 percent higher adjusted odds of obesity and overweight than those living in neighborhoods with the most amenities.d

Interpretation and Geographic Equity Analysis

The HDMT neighborhood completeness indicator is presented as a profile of key public and retail services and goods available to San Francisco residents. We are currently working on a new indicator methodology that will allow us to present scores over a contiuous surface for the accessibility of public and retail services.  In the meantime, we have presented a map for walkability which was prepared in 2009 by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. This map combines public and retail services and weights each service based on the frequency with which residents are believed to use them. More information on the methods used to creat this map can be found in the Methods section.

Given the diversity of services in most San Francisco neighborhoods, neighborhood completeness has been divided into three separate maps for each neighborhood: public services, retail services, and food availability for ease of viewing. These maps are intended to be examined comprehensively when assessing neighborhood completeness and proximity to goods and services. The other maps are located at Indicator PI.7.b.

The Walkability Index map illustrates that the Northeastern quadrant of San Francisco has a greater density of retail and public services. This map, however, is strongly influenced by the density of retail, dining, and entertainment services in Downtown and the neighborhoods that surround it. Click on the neighborhood names in the table to view their public service maps. It is important to remember that completeness does not reflect any measure of quality of services. 

Methods

Included in this indicator are eleven public services, necessary for meeting the daily needs of neighborhood residents. These key public services include child care centers, community gardens, hospitals, libraries, open space, parks ½ acre or larger, performing arts venues, post offices, public art installations, public schools, and recreational facilities. Each neighborhood map displays all key public services in the Planning neighborhood boundary and the key public services in adjacent neighborhoods. The neighborhood table includes the count of each key public service; total counts of all key public services; and the population density and area of each neighborhood. Public service data was combined into a database and validated by visiting three neighborhoods and visually confirming the presence of those public services within ¼ mile radius around an intersection for each neighborhood. From our public service database, only 1.32% of the services were not found during our neighborhood site validations. In addition, the visual confirmation included no new identified public services to be added to our database. The data collection and validation methods do not necessarily catch all possible duplication. For example, one location might be listed as a recreation center, an open space, and a community garden. In addition, there may be key public services not counted in the maps and tables due to new services established after the data was compiled.

Open space in this indicator refers to all green/open space except neighborhood or regional parks that are at least ½ acre in size. In some cases, parks and open spaces fall into more than one planning neighborhood. Certain parks and open spaces were counted more than once in the neighborhood table because the area of the park or open space is in more than one neighborhood and could possibly be assessed by residents from each neighborhood (e.g. John McLaren Park falls in Visitacion valley and Excelsior and Embarcadero Promenade falls in South of Market and Financial District).For additional definitions, caveats, and explanations to the public services included on this list, please visit the following Public Infrastructure and Environmental Stewardship Indicator pages:

For the Walkability Index map, the following methodology is outlined in the MTC Snapshot methodology documentaiton (http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/snapshot/Appx%20C-Detailed%20Methodology.pdf):

This map shows the density of essential destinations in five categories:  
1. Religious, Educational Institutions and Libraries  
2. Health Services  
3. Other Services  
4. Parks  
5. Retail, Dining, and Entertainment.  
The categories were taken from the Transportation 2030 Equity Analysis report which 
compared the number of businesses by communities of concern against the remainder of 
Bay Area communities, among other variations of these data. The establishments within 
these categories were selected from the 2006 CA Employment Development Department 
database of all businesses, as well as TeleAtlas Parks, and Landmarks (Religious 
Institutions, Educational Institutions, and Libraries). 

"This map shows the density of essential destinations in five categories:  1. Religious, Educational Institutions and Libraries  2. Health Services  3. Other Services  4. Parks  5. Retail, Dining, and Entertainment.  The categories were taken from the Transportation 2030 Equity Analysis report which compared the number of businesses by communities of concern against the remainder of Bay Area communities, among other variations of these data. The establishments within these categories were selected from the 2006 CA Employment Development Department database of all businesses, as well as TeleAtlas Parks, and Landmarks (Religious Institutions, Educational Institutions, and Libraries). 

 

Each Bay Area intersection is ranked by the total number of destinations within a network distance of one mile. The number of destinations that are within one-half mile of an intersection is weighted more heavily than the number of destinations that are between one-half and one mile. Because people access different types of destinations with varied frequency, the types of destinations are also weighted by category: Parks 15%; Retail, Dining, and Entertainment 40%; Health Services 10%; Other Services 20%; Religious, Educational Institutions, and Libraries 15%. 

These intersection-based data are interpolated into a continuous surface of 100m grid cells using an inverse distance weighting technique. This method evaluates groups of intersections and derives a weighted average value based on the inverse of the distance from grid cells on the map to intersections within one mile." 

Limitations

Although geographic distance is just one dimension of accessibility, proximity to services does promote increased walking and biking, reduced daily vehicle trips and miles traveled, increased possibilities for healthful and meaningful work, and increased interactions among neighbors and others on the street. While this indicator demonstrates the geographic distribution of key public services within a neighborhood, two residents of the same neighborhood may have very different access to any service, due to the size and topography of the neighborhood, available transportation options, cost of services, hours of operation, and language and cultural accessibility.

In addition to public services, community services play an important role in each neighborhood but are not included in the Neighborhood Completeness Indicator. Please see the following Community Cohesion Indicators around community services:

Data Source

Walkability map data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, prepared in 2009 using 2006 data, received April 2012.

List of Childcare Centers from Community Care Licensing Division, California Department of Social Services. Accessed on May 8, 2009: http://www.ccld.ca.gov/docs/ccld_search/ccld_search.aspx.

Location of community gardens from San Francisco Garden Resource Organization. 2007. Available at:  http://www.sfgro.org/.

Location of parks ½ acre or larger, open space, and recreational facilities from the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, 2008.

Location of Public Art Works from San Francisco Art Commission, March 2008. http://www.sfartscommission.org/pubartcollection/

Location of Library Facilities from San Francisco Public Library. Accessed July 2009: http://www.sfpl.org

Location of schools from San Francisco Unified School District. Accessed online on July 22, 2009: http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=school_info.profiles

Location of hospitals, arts venues, and post offices gathered by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2008.

Map and table prepared by City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software. 

Table data is presented by planning neighborhood.

Detailed information regarding census data, geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found at the following links:

Interactive boundaries map

http://sfindicatorproject.org/resources/data_map_methods

  1. Moore Iacofano Gostsman, Inc. Richmond general plan update, issues & opportunities, paper #8: community health and wellness (draft). 2007. http://www.cityofrichmondgeneralplan.org/docManager/1000000640/Existing%20Condictions%20Report%20August%202007.pdf
  2. US Green Building Council. LEED rating systems, neighborhood development. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148
  3. Purciel, Marnie. Spatial Equity in New York City Neighborhoods. A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation and The Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. May 2007.

  4. Gopal K. Singh, M. Siahpush, M. D. Kogan. Neighborhood Socioeconomic Conditions, Built Environments, and Childhood Obesity. Health Affairs. 2010; 29, no. 3: 503-512.