“Well-being assessment throughout San Francisco neighborhoods”

San Francisco City “Well-being assessment throughout San Francisco neighborhoods”

GIS Methods for Urban Research Nancy Haddad UMD18

A – Introduction Social sciences studies have been focusing on the well-being state of urban dwellers, which can be used as an indicator to assess the sustainable development level of an urban context. It is argued by J. Sachs1 that there is a strong correlation between achieving sustainability and the individual’s quality of life. A good quality of life is reflected in healthier societies, improved productivity, less inequalities, accessibility to services, and good environmental living conditions.

In this report, the analysis will focus on “assessing the human well-being in San Francisco city with a hypothesis that a positive well-being level may potentially contribute to higher level of sustainability in terms of social, economic as well as environmental.” Therefore, the indicators listed in section B will clarify in detail the impact of each indicator on the sustainability pillars. The section C contains different maps with their respective descriptions and observations, where all findings will be defined as one main conclusion on the well-being level of San Francisco and its impact on sustainability.

B – Sustainability Indicators Human Well-being is a multi-dimensional concept that combines various aspects of a human life, and there are several indicators used for its evaluation. Statistically the most common indicators used are “Income and Poverty”. However as argued by the UN2, the quality of life is assessed through lenses beyond the monetary means. In this report, the analysis will use: * Income and Poverty A well-being is perceived as better with higher income and low poverty levels, which reduces social disruptions leading to safer societies. * Education It has a strong impact on the well-being of the individual; a good education level offers wider access to work employment, and that influences the socioeconomic level of city: higher education can lead to higher productivity, and potentially increased innovation and development. In addition, a well-educated society tend to have stronger awareness on environmental problems, thus contributing more to an environmentally sustainable living. * Pedestrian accessibility to services: Healthcare, Education, and Transportation A good neighborhood tends to provide full physical accessibility to public services. In this report, the ’5 min walk’3 tool will be used to access the physical accessibility in terms of pedestrian (radius of 400m). The ’5 min walk’ has a positive socio-economic impact – people without cars have access to services - and this accessibility with different transport modes saves times and improves the human well-being, will have a greater impact on the sustainable development of the city. Note the financial accessibility to such services are not within the scope of this analysis.

C – Maps: Analysis and description 1.

2.

3.

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/sustainable-development-and-human-well-being/ http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi https://morphocode.com/the-5-minute-walk/#:~:text=The%20neighborhood%20unit&text=The%205%2Dminute%20walk%20can,Survey%20of%20New%20York%20City.

2|Page

Map Description #SF001 This map shows the 41 neighborhoods of San Francisco city.

Observations: The neighborhoods located in the North-East quadrant of the city are much smaller than the ones at the waterfront on the South-East and South-West sides of the city.

3|Page

Map Description #SF002 This map shows the medium household income on a neighborhood scale.

Observations: The average household income on a city scale is $88,643. The spatial analysis shows that 19 out of 41 neighborhoods fall below the average, almost half of the city which may indicate a certain level of socio-economic inequalities. And that may hinder the well-being level, thus affecting the sustainable development of a city.

4|Page

Map Description #SF003 This map shows the medium household income on a neighborhood scale, and poverty percentages.

Observations: The SF poverty percentage is around 12%; Viewing the map there are 15 neighborhoods below the poverty line.

Low-income neighborhoods have different levels of poverty, which further deepens the presence of high socio-economic inequalities in the city, and among vulnerable communities themselves, mostly located near the harbor, in the Southern side of the city, as well as Treasure Island.

5|Page

Map Description #SF004 This map shows the spatial distribution of the Educational Facilities all over the city of San Francisco.

Observations: The map shows almost a widespread distribution of education facilities over the city. However, there is a high concentration of those facilities in the North-East quadrant of the city, and a lower distribution in the South-East and South-West corners of the city. Such observation shows an equal availability of educational hubs in all neighborhoods on average.

6|Page

Map Description #SF005 This map shows the spatial distribution of the Educational Facilities all over the city of San Francisco, and the different education levels in each

Observations: The map shows on average a good level of education all over the city. Most of the neighborhoods show high education levels reflected by higher percentages in college and professional degrees. However, the South-East quadrant of the city and few neighborhoods near the harbor show the lowest educational level reflected by a high percentage for “Highschool & Less”. Therefore, education is affected by more than just the availability of educational facilities.

7|Page

Map Description # SF006 This map shows the spatial distribution of the Educational Facilities, education levels, and medium household income.

Observations: The map shows that lower educational levels are located in low-income neighborhoods. Therefore, the physical availability of educational facilities is not a solid indicator, other factors may intervene. Viewing the medium income rate, a low education level could be linked to un-affordability of access to such facilities, or other potential reasons besides poverty could be the lack of awareness, familial disruptions.

8|Page

Map Description #SF 007 This map shows the educational services coverage in San Francisco city, as well as the % of coverage per neighborhood and on a city scale.

The coverage is defined as per the ‘5 min city’ which is equal to 400m walking distance from an educational facility.

Observations: Almost all neighborhoods have pedestrian accessibility to educational facilities within the ‘5 min city’ norms. The % tend to be higher in the upper North-East quadrant of the city, where schools are highly concentrated. The Southern neighborhoods show lower % with the lowest level at 32% in Lakeshore neighborhood. On a city scale, the level of pedestrian accessibility to the existing educational facilities within the ‘5 min city’ norm, it is at a good rate of almost 70%, which is considerably an important figure explaining a good distribution of schools around the city.

However, this is does not explain the education level of each neighborhood because education is explained through other additional factors (map SF006) 9|Page

Map Description #SF 008 This map shows the Healthcare Facilities existing in San Francisco city which combines hospitals and clinics.

Observations: A rough observation on the disproportional distribution of the healthcare facilities around the city. While the North-East quadrant of the city has the highest concentration of those facilities, the Southern part of the city has almost none. This spatial observation indicates an inadequacy in the urban planning of the city in terms of hospitalization, which may lead to inequalities among the inhabitants, especially for low-incomed groups who has to commute longer distances hospitals.

10 | P a g e

Map Description #SF 009 This map shows the population % that are within the 400m buffer from the existing healthcare facilities - Per neighborhood - On a city scale.

Observations: On a city scale, the map shows that only 10% of the city population are located within a buffer area of 400m from healthcare facilities. On a neighborhood scale, there are only 29 out of 41 neighborhood who are included within the radius of 400m. The important percentages are located in the Northern side of the city where most of the healthcare facilities are located. This spatial observation validates the disproportional distribution and accessibility to healthcare facilities among the various neighborhoods.

11 | P a g e

Map Description #SF 010 This map shows the shortest distance from a neighborhood center to the nearest healthcare facility.

Observations: This spatial observation leads to the conclusion that almost all San Francisco neighborhoods do not comply with the ‘5 min city’ walkability norms, where public facilities are advised to be located within a spectrum of 400m from the neighborhood center. Thus, the distribution of the existing healthcare facilities may lead to certain inequality in terms of pedestrian accessibility.

12 | P a g e

Map Description #SF 011 This map shows the distribution of the Tram and Bus stops in San Francisco city.

Observations: It is noticeable that the city is well connected through the public transport system with a higher coverage of Buses than Tram. The North-East quadrant of the city have the highest concentration in both Trams and Bus stops.

13 | P a g e

Map Description #SF 012 This map shows the population % that are within the 400m buffer from the existing Tram and Bus stops.

- Per neighborhood - On a city scale.

Observations: On a city scale, the map shows that only 94% of the city population are located within a buffer area of 400m from the public transport points. On a neighborhood scale, almost all neighborhoods are reachable within the radius of 400m. This spatial observation validates the well connectivity of the city through public transportation.

14 | P a g e

Map Description #SF 013 This map shows the various public facilities are located within 400m walking distance from the center of each neighborhood.

Observations: On average most of the neighborhood centers have public transportation stops within a walking distance of 400m from the center. Similarly, to educational facilities, however the healthcare facilities are allocated in the North-East quadrant of the city, which means that only those neighborhoods have healthcare facilities within 400m radius from their center.

15 | P a g e

D – Conclusions

This report focused on the assessment of the human’s well-being around San Francisco city neighborhoods. The analysis used three main indicators for this assessment which are: Income and poverty, educational level, and the Pedestrian accessibility to public services – Healthcare, Education, and public transport. The pedestrian accessibility assessment was based on the ‘5 min walk’ norms which is known as the ‘neighborhood unit’ or ‘pedestrian shed’.

Using this indicator, the analysis focused on areas of 800m diameter around particular points to evaluate the walkability status of a neighborhood.

When examining the Income and Poverty levels in the neighborhoods, there are some disparities between the different areas. Although the average poverty rate in the city is 12%, the spatial analysis shows that certain neighborhoods have exceeded this level greatly, which indicates a certain level of inequality and social injustice. In addition, the educational level is similarly showing great level of differences which can be related to several factors beyond the pedestrian accessibility which was examined through the ‘ 5 min walk’ tool. On the other hand, the pedestrian accessibility to healthcare facilities shows inequality of access where the distribution of such points is disproportional which creates a greater stress and economic burden especially for the low-income communities who have to commute longer using transit or private vehicles to reach a hospital or a clinic. And it does not only affect the socio-economic status and the well-being of the inhabitants, but also it adversely affects the environment and increases the urban sprawl. Overall, the North-East quadrant of the city also seem to have the high concentration in healthcare and educational facilities, as well as tram and bus stops. Although the city seems to be widely connected through public transport, the southern neighborhoods or San Francisco seem to have less public transport stops.

Viewing the findings from each indicator, the human well-being of the neighborhoods does not seem to be equal, and that shows that there are several factors affecting the livelihoods of the inhabitants which brings equity and social justice to the forefront of the sustainable development debate.

Thus, as a conclusion, San Francisco neighborhoods can need certain improvement to thrive more in the sustainability development. This would require urban planners to prioritize the pedestrian sheds of neighborhoods, and local governments are required to invest more in reducing the present inequalities focusing on the root causes of poverty among the low-income communities, which may influence the educational level in the same areas.

Such improvements will theoretically be resulting in improved health, human well-being, safety and environmentally friendliness, and thus leading to more sustainably developed neighborhoods.

16 | P a g e

E – ANNEX i-

Description: • All layers where reprojected using the reproject layer from the vector general processing toolbox; and the ESPG of the project was also changed to 7132 for San Francisco city.

• The city boundary was generated from the neighborhood boundary shape file using the dissolve tool and the holes were cleaned using the delete holes tool from the vector general processing toolbox.

• Additional data were added to the neighborhood boundaries shape file in forms of xlsx and csv files and were joined using the tools add vector layer > add delimited text layer.

• Clinics data were loaded online using the plugin quickosm and the polygons were transformed to point layer using the tool centroid from the vector geometry processing toolbox. The new shape file clinics was reprojected to the new EPSG 7132 and merged with the existing loaded shape file of hospitals using the tool merge vector layer from the vector creation processing toolbox.

• The tram and bus stops shape file were exported from the initially loaded transportation infrastructure shape file using the select by expression and extract by expression tools.

• In order to assess the walkability norms in the neighborhoods, several buffer areas of 400m were created using the buffer tool and all new layers were saved as permanent.

• All buffer areas were dissolved and saved as permanent shape file using the tool dissolve.

• The intersection between the city boundary and neighborhoods boundaries shapes files with the respective new buffer shape file was created using the intersection tool from the geoprocessing tools.

• To view the nearest distance between a neighborhood center to the nearest hospital, the distance to nearest hub (line to hub) from the vector analysis processing toolbox was used.

• The neighborhood centers were created using the centroids tool from the vector geometry toolbox.

• The percentages of the populations were calculated using the field calculator in the attribute table of the respective shape file. And the field was exported as a separated shape file in order to assign a visual layout for it.

17 | P a g e

ii-

Screenshots Layers

• The created layers are the ones highlighted in yellow using several methods such as data entry and using geoprocessing tools (buffer, dissolve, intersection …)

18 | P a g e

iii-

Screenshots Attribute Tables

19 | P a g e

• The new fields created by calculations using the field calculator are the ones highlighted in yellow.

• The new fields created by intersecting shape file are the one highlighted in green.

• The new fields created by importing data in forms of xlsx and csv files are the one highlighted in blue.

20 | P a g e