| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Methods The analysis used in this
report was based on a set of 20 variables collected for 73 CWAC neighborhoods and 100
additional neighborhoods (NSAs) outside the urban core. However, because of the lack of
data for two of these variables for the NSAs¾ the
Appearance Index and Projected Infrastructure Improvement Costs¾ the analysis
for combined CWAC and NSA neighborhoods was based upon 18 of the 20 original
variables. The 18 variables were
classified into four groups or dimensions: Social, Physical, Crime, and Economic. The data
were standardized prior to calculating quality of life indices. The standardization was
done by computing the mean value for the neighborhoods on each of the 18 variables. The
mean for each variable was given a value of zero and each neighborhood score was expressed
in terms of the number of standard deviations above or below the mean (Z scores). This
procedure converts all variables to the same unit and allows neighborhood scores to be
added to derive an overall or composite score based on multiple variables. Some of the
variables used in the analysis were inverse measures of the quality of life, i.e., a high
value indicated a low quality of life condition. The signs of the Z scores for these
variables were reversed before summing scores for several variables to derive an overall
or cumulative score for the quality of life. Subsequently, quality of life
scores were calculated for individual NSAs for each of the four groups of variables. A
composite score was determined for each neighborhood on each of the four dimensions
(Social, Crime, Physical, and Economic) by summing the neighborhood Z scores on the
individual variables comprising the dimension. Once the composite Z scores were determined
on a dimension for the neighborhoods, these scores were standardized again, i.e., each
neighborhood’s score was expressed in terms of the number of standard deviation units
above or below the mean. Thus, a high positive score indicated a high quality of life
condition in the neighborhood. Finally, an overall or
composite quality of life index for each of the neighborhoods was determined by summing
each neighborhood’s quality of life scores for the four dimensions. In computing the
overall index, the four dimensions were weighted in the following manner: Social, 30%;
Crime, 30%; Physical, 30%; and Economic, 10%. Once a weighted composite score was
determined for each neighborhood, these scores were again standardized by setting the mean
value to zero and expressing each neighborhood’s score in standard deviation units
above or below the mean. Large positive scores indicate a high quality of life while large
negative scores reveal a low quality of life. In addition to the citywide analysis using the 73 CWAC
neighborhoods and the 100 additional NSAs, the same procedure was used to determine
quality of life scores for the CWAC neighborhoods as a separate group. In the case of the
latter analysis, all 20 of the original variables were used. A companion document, Charlotte Neighborhood Quality of Life Technical Report, contains the complete set of data for all individual variables as well as maps displaying the distribution of variables across NSA's.
|
|
