Transcript Slide 1

Historical Research and
Existing Data
ESP 178
S. Handy
2/27/07
Cross-Sectional
Longitudinal
Single Case
Historical events
research
Historical process
research
Multiple
Cases
Cross-sectional
comparative
research
Comparative
historical research
Examples
• Qualitative historical research:
– TxDOT Highway Bypasses Study
• Quantitative comparative research:
– Portland State bicycle study
– Sprawl and obesity study
The Economic Impacts of
Highway Relief Routes on
Small Towns in Texas
1999-2001 project for the Texas
Department of Transportation
Figure 3-10. Map of Fort Stockton Highways
Research Questions
• What happened to businesses...
– In downtown?
– On old route?
– On new route?
• What factors explain those changes?
– Relief route?
– Others?
Figure 2-1. Location of Case Study Communities
Table 2-1. Case Study Communities
Case Study
Highway
Year of
Relief Route
Type of
Access
Bastrop
SH 71
1960
uncontrolled
5,340
1987/1995
Bowie
US 287
1978
controlled
5,219
1979
Cleveland
US 59
1988
controlled
7,605
1980/2000
Edinburg
US 281
1977
controlled
48,465
1992
Fort Stockton IH 10
1983
controlled
7,846
1986
Gatesville
SH 36
1986
uncontrolled
15,591
1983
La Grange
SH 71
1990
controlled
4,478
1985
Livingston
US 59
1981
controlled
5,433
1983
Smithville
SH 71
1984
controlled
3,901
n/a
Stamford
US 277
1987
controlled
3,636
1989
Anson
US 277
n/a
n/a
2,556
n/a
Dayton
US 90
n/a
n/a
5,709
n/a
Giddings
US 290
n/a
n/a
5,105
n/a
Haskell
US 277
n/a
n/a
3,106
n/a
* Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
** Source: P hone calls to individual Wal-Mart stores
2000
P opulation*
Wal-Mart
Opening**
Data Collection
• Socio-demographic, geographic and
economic data
• Site visit:
Business owners
– Interviews 
– Observations
– Photographs
• Follow-up interviews
City officials
Community leaders
TxDOT officials
Figure 3-9. Population of FORT STOCKTON AND PECOS COUNTY, 1900-1990
Table 5-2. Traf f ic Volumes on Original Route and Relief Route
Original Route
Relief Route
Case Study
Before
After
Change
from
Before
Bastrop
2,050
700
-66%
3,400
66%
3,070
14,300
366%
Bowie
6,370
2,380
-63%
2,600
-59%
6,090
13,200
117%
Cleveland
19,200
4,700
-76%
4,800
-75%
16,400
22,000
34%
Edinburg
7,420
7,640
3%
6,300
-15%
1,660
3,600
117%
Fort Stockton
4,000
1,700
-58%
3,000
-25%
3,100
4,500
45%
Gatesville
5,100
3,000
-41%
3,700
-27%
2,300
4,700
104%
La Grange
3,700
3,400
-8%
3,900
5%
2,400
8,000
233%
Livingston
14,420
4,700
-67%
3,500
-76%
8,300
16,500
99%
Smithville
7,000
2,100
-70%
1,300
-81%
7,200
7,700
7%
Stamford
2,900
2,600
-10%
3,200
10%
2,800
6,100
118%
1970
1996
Change
from
Before
1996
Change
Anson
5,600
10,600
89%
Dayton
9,090
21,000
131%
Giddings
3,410
19,400
469%
Haskell
2,310
4,700
103%
Source: TxDOT District Traffic Maps
Opening
Change
from
1996 Opening
Case Study
Changes
Key Factors*
Net
Changes
Change
in
in
Downtow Develop- Highwayn
ment on Related
Businesse Relief Businesse
s
Route
s
Near Metro Area
Near Other Towns
Stopping Point
Traffic Levels
Alignment
Visibility
Annexation/Utilities
Local Programs
Land Owners
Table 5-1. Summary of Changes and Key Factors
Bastrop
change
lots
Bowie
change
slow
Cleveland
decline
slow
Edinburg
change
slow
Fort Stockton
decline
slow
+
+
decline
+ decline
+ no change
- increase
+ -
Gatesville
change
slow
no change
La Grange
increase
slow
increase
Livingston
change
lots
increase
Smithville
change
slow
decline
Stamford
decline
slow
decline
Anson
decline
n/a
decline
Dayton
decline
n/a
decline
Giddings
decline
n/a
increase
Haskell
decline
n/a
decline
uncontrolled access
increase
- + +
+
- +
+
+ + +
+ - - - - +
- -
+
-
* - negative impact on community, + positive impact on community
Unique Factor
prisons
Main St Program
lake
dry county
Quantitative Comparative
Research
Source: Dill and Carr 2003
Source: Dill and Carr 2003
Source: Dill and Carr 2003
Data Sources
National Surveys
• US Census:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
• American Time Use Survey, BLS:
http://www.bls.gov/tus/home.htm
• General Social Survey:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/projects/gensoc.asp
Source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/02/art3full.pdf; data from Canadian version of ATUS
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/opinion/25schott.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Uses of Census and Other Data
• As a source of descriptive statistics at the
start of a research project.
• As a way of identifying appropriate
communities to use as a part of a
sampling plan.
• As a basis for assessing how well your
sample matches the target population.
Figure 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled per Person in US, 1936-2003
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
2000
1996
1992
1988
1984
1980
1976
1972
1968
1964
1960
1956
1952
1948
1944
1940
1936
-
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
1971
1968
1965
1962
1959
1956
Millions of Constant 2000 Dollars
Figure 2. Capital Outlays for Highways in US, 1956-2000
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
From UCTC proposal
Vi
st
a
(U
C
SB
)
Irv
in
e
DA
VI
Bo
S
ul
de
r,
C
Pa O
lo
Al
Be t o
rk
el
Eu
ge ey
ne
Sa , OR
nt
Sa
a
n
Cr
Lu
uz
is
O
Sa
bi
sp
nt
o
a
Ba
rb
M
ar
ad
a
is
on
Tu , W
I
sc
on
,A
Ith
Z
ac
a,
NY
Is
la
Figure 1. Percent Biking to Work
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
policypete.com/background(11).htm
Table 1. Socio-Economic Characteristics: Sacramento Region vs. California and U.S.
United States
California
Sacramento-Yolo, CA
CMSA
281,421,906
33,871,648
1,796,857
Percent Hispanic or Latino
Percent Black or African American alone
Percent Asian alone
12.5%
12.3%
3.6%
32.4%
6.7%
10.9%
15.5%
7.1%
9.0%
Percent English-speaking households
Percent Spanish-speaking households
Percent Asian language-speaking households
Linguistically isolated households
Percent foreign born
81.1%
10.2%
2.6%
4.1%
12.4%
62.2%
22.4%
8.6%
9.6%
35.4%
77.2%
10.7%
5.9%
5.0%
16.9%
Percent of population under 18 years
Percent of population under 5 years
Median age
25.7%
6.8%
35.3
27.3%
7.3%
33.3
27.1%
6.9%
34.6
Average Household size
Percent of families with children under 18
Percent of families with children under 6
2.59
48.8%
21.3%
2.87
52.7%
24.2%
2.65
51.5%
22.9%
Population
Median household income in 1999
Percent of population with income in 1999 below
poverty level
Percent of children under 18 with income in 1999
below poverty level
Percent with college degree or higher
Percent of workers who walk, bike, use transit
Percent of housing units built 1950 or later
Percent of housing units built 1970 or later
$
41,994
$
$
46,106
12.4%
14.2%
12.7%
16.2%
19.0%
16.9%
30.7%
33.7%
35.3%
8.0%
8.8%
6.3%
77.7%
51.3%
82.9%
50.6%
89.6%
62.5%
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)
From ALR cul-de-sacs proposal
47,493
Table 3-4. Selection of Neighborhoods
Large Metro Area
Small City
From Caltrans study
Traditional Neighborhood
Suburban Neighborhood
Silicon Valley - Mountain View
Silicon Valley -Sunnyvale
Sacramento - Midtown
Sacramento - Natomas
Santa Rosa - Junior College
Santa Rosa - Rincon Valley
Modesto - Central
Modesto - Suburban
Table 3-5. Respondent Characteristics vs. Census Characteristics
From Caltrans study
Modesto Central
Sacramento Midtown
Silicon Valley Sunnyvale
Santa Rosa Rincon Valley
Modesto Suburban
Sacramento Natomas
Percent of units built after
1960
Santa Rosa Junior College
Respondent Characteristics
Number
Percent female
Average auto ownership
Average age
Average HH size
Percent of HHs w/kids
Average number of kids
Percent home owner
Median HH income (k$)
Census Characteristics
Population
Average age
Average HH size
Percent of HHs w/kids
Percent home owner
Median HH income (k$)
Suburban
Silicon Valley Mountain View
Traditional
228
47.3
1.80
43.3
2.08
21.1
1.60
51.1
74.3
215
54.3
1.63
47.0
2.03
18.6
1.58
57.8
40.2
184
56.3
1.59
51.3
2.13
21.7
1.83
75.6
42.5
271
58.2
1.50
43.4
1.78
8.9
1.58
47.0
43.8
217
46.9
1.79
47.1
2.58
42.4
1.65
61.1
88.4
165
50.9
1.66
54.7
2.19
24.8
1.59
68.7
49.6
220
50.9
1.88
53.2
2.41
25.5
1.98
81.0
40.2
182
54.9
1.68
45.6
2.35
31.9
1.64
82.4
46.2
5,493
9,886
13,295
7,259
14,973
13,617
19,045
13,295
36.1
2.08
19.3
34.3
75.1
36.3
2.21
20.3
31.2
41.6
36.5
2.46
32.9
58.8
43.8
42.7
1.79
12.4
34.3
47.5
35.9
2.66
35.3
53.2
92.3
38.3
2.48
35.4
63.5
51.1
38.1
2.51
34.2
61.4
42.1
31.7
2.57
41.7
55.2
46.2
54.3
37.2
21.4
22.7
79.9
90.3
94.6
90.2
Environmental Justice
Analysis
“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.
Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a
racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group, should bear a
disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and
commercial operations or the execution of federal, state,
local, and tribal programs and policies.
Meaningful involvement means that: (1) potentially
affected community residents have an appropriate
opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed
activity that will affect their environment and/or health; (2)
the public's contribution can influence the regulatory
agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all participants
involved will be considered in the decision making process;
and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the
involvement of those potentially affected.”
Source: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/
“The SCAG RTP used Census data to profile mode choice by income
category, clarifying who most benefitted from farebox subsidies for
bus, urban rail, and Metrolink, a commuter rail operation.”
Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/case/case4.htm
Table 1-4. Population Characteristics in Monitor Area 1 vs. Region2- 2000
Exceed- % Non White
% Hispanic
Per Capita Income % Non Driving4
ances Monitor Region Monitor Region Monitor Region Monitor Region
Monitor
ID
1995+
Area
Area
Area
Area
Lynwood - Long Beach Blvd.
06-037-1301
71
65.3
51.3
87.0
44.6
7,739 20,683
12.7
14.6
Calexico - 129 Ethel Street
06-025-0005
64
51.0
50.6
93.9
72.2 10,193 13,239
16.0
10.3
Fairbanks - Cushman
02-090-0002
18
31.2
22.2
4.8
4.2 20,921 21,553
32.6
10.4
Fairbanks - Gilliam Way
02-090-0020
14
48.6
22.2
5.6
4.2 15,886 21,553
13.4
10.4
Fairbanks - 7th Avenue
02-090-0013
7
31.2
22.2
4.8
4.2 20,921 21,553
32.6
10.4
Phoenix - Grand Ave & Thomas Rd04-013-0022
7
38.5
23.0
62.5
25.1 13,109 21,907
18.6
10.0
Hawthorne - 120th Street
06-037-5001
7
46.4
51.3
47.6
44.6 21,148 20,683
8.2
14.6
Spokane - Third Avenue
53-063-0044
5
12.7
8.6
3.2
2.8 19,016 19,233
43.5
11.0
Burbank - W. Palm Avenue
06-037-1002
5
34.6
51.3
33.2
44.6 20,275 20,683
10.3
14.6
Las Vegas - East Charleston Blvd 32-003-0557
4
34.2
26.2
32.6
5.3 15,935 21,697
13.1
9.8
Las Vegas - Sunrise Avenue
32-003-0561
3
49.6
26.2
68.7
5.3 10,413 21,697
22.9
9.8
Reseda - Gault Street
06-037-1201
3
41.2
51.3
45.4
44.6 15,069 20,683
16.6
14.6
Anchorage - 3201 New Seward Hwy
02-020-0037
3
33.6
27.8
7.1
5.7 26,260 25,287
17.4
11.0
El Paso - North Campbell
48-141-0027
3
17.4
26.1
93.6
78.2
3,907 13,139
19.9
7.9
Denver - Broadway - Camp
08-031-0002
2
48.6
20.6
40.1
18.8 20,300 26,206
47.2
10.1
Denver - Speer & Auraria Parkway 08-031-0019
2
19.5
20.6
9.2
18.8 68,944 26,206
55.9
10.1
Kalispell - Idaho & Main
30-029-0045
2
3.5
3.7
1.3
1.4 19,085 17,915
13.0
10.8
Spokane - Hamilton Street
53-063-0040
1
11.7
8.6
4.6
2.8 10,838 19,233
26.3
11.0
Phoenix - Indian School Road
04-013-0016
1
48.8
23.0
60.5
25.1
9,986 21,907
11.0
10.0
Provo - 242 N. University Avenue 49-049-0004
1
12.5
7.6
12.4
7.0
9,991 15,557
40.3
12.6
Provo - 363 N. University Avenue 49-049-0005
1
12.5
7.6
12.4
7.0
9,991 15,557
70.5
12.6
Anchorage - 3201 Turnagain
02-020-0048
1
32.6
27.8
6.5
5.7 23,388 25,287
31.0
11.0
Pop/Sq Mile
Monitor City 3
Area
17,827 14,389
5,441
4,353
3,042
949
3,547
949
3,042
949
6,117
2,782
7,679 13,879
4,798
3,387
11,966
5,782
8,609
4,223
11,878
4,223
11,444
2,344
4,297
153
4,519
2,263
6,041
3,617
5,139
3,617
2,047
2,606
5,913
3,387
8,776
2,782
17,094
2,653
17,094
2,653
7,192
153
Source: 2000 U.S. Population Census; U.S. EPA
1
2
Monitor area defined by census tracts immediately surrounding monitor site.
Region defined by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) except for Fairbanks North Star Burough, Los Angeles PMSA, Imperial County (Calexico), and Flathead County (Kalispell).
3
County of Los Angeles used for Reseda monitor site.
4
Share of w orkers 16 years and older that do not drive alone or carpool to w ork.
Issues
• Responsible use of secondary data:
– Ask questions
• Methodological complications:
– Challenge of putting good data sets together
– Method of agreement for identifying causes
• Ethical issues:
– FOIA
– Cross-cultural issues
Meet in 1137 PES again on
Thursday!