Community Sustainability: Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Institute for the EnvironmentSenior Capstone 2007 1

Chelsea BrinerKatie BurkeMark DarwinMonica FoleyThanveer GadwalSpencer Leach

Steven LoyJaime NeillJaymin PatelNitin SekarLindsey WitmerAnna Wyatt

22

Establish a model with which communities can self-assess their sustainabilityApply the model to Chapel Hill to show how the system works and to asses the town’s sustainabilityVirtual North Carolina◦ Comprehensive list of indicators Promote understanding of the importance of sustainability

3

Sustainability – Meeting the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfill theirs◦ Evaluated the three sides of sustainability: Environmental

Health, Social Equity, and EconomicsStudy Area – The goal was to evaluate the sustainability of Chapel Hill, NC. Often data not available for specific indicators, so Orange County, NC data was substituted

4

5

Indicators were chosen that measure sustainability of Chapel HillFor each indicator, a metric was chosen that measures the status of its indicator

6

7

Environmental Health Economic Vitality Social Equity

Ozone Warning Days Community Wealth

Health Status

Water Use Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Green Space Housing Costs Crime Rate

Waste Reduction Rate Access to Public Transportation

Transportation Mode Breakdown

7

8

Dimension Indicator MetricEnvironmental Health

Ozone Warning Days Air Quality Index

Water Use Gallons per person per dayGreen Space Acres per 1000 residentsWaste Reduction Rate % Reduction since 1991Transportation Mode Breakdown

% non-SOV use journey to work commute

Economic Vitality Community Wealth Median household income ($)Unemployment Rates % unemployed (ratio black:white)Housing Affordability % who spend >35% of income on housing

Social Equity Health Status % with no unhealthy days per month (ratio other:white)

Health Insurance % with health insurance (ratio other:white)Crime Rate Crime acts per 100,000 peoplePublic Transport Access % within 1/4 miles of bus stop

8

9

Environmental Health

Weight Economic Vitality Weight Social Equity Weight

Ozone Warning Days

0.15 Community Wealth

0.40 Health Status 0.30

Water Use 0.30 Unemployment Rate

0.30 Health Insurance 0.30

Green Space 0.05 Housing Affordability

0.30 Crime Rate 0.20

Waste Reduction Rate

0.25 Access to Public Transportation

0.20

Transportation Mode Breakdown

0.25

Total: 1.00 Total: 1.00 Total: 1.00

9

10

Dimension No. Indicators WeightEnvironmental

Health5 5/12 = 0.42

Economic Vitality 3 3/12 = 0.25Social Equity 4 4/12 = 0.33

Total: 12/12 =1

10

11

Indicator Metric 1 2 3 4 5Ozone warnings Days per year 301-500 201-300 101-200 51-100 0-50Water use Gallons per person per day >370 221-370 171-220 61-170 <60Green space Acres per 1000 residents <10 10--30 30-50 50-70 >70Waste Reduction Rate % reduction since 1991 <15 15-29 30-44 45-60 >60Transp. Mode Breakdown % non-SOV use journey to work commu <15% 15-34% 35-54% 55-75% >75%

Community Wealth Median household income ($) <30459 30459 - 38148 38149-53893 53894-77643 >77644Unemployment Rates % unemployed (ratio black:white) >3.00 2.50-3.00 1.70-2.49 1.10-1.69 1.00-1.09Housing Affordabil i ty % spend >35% of income on housing >32.6% 30.9-32.6% 27.5-30.8% 25.7-27.4% <25.7%

Health Status % with no unhealthy days per month <54% 55-69% 70-79% 80-89% >90%Health Insurance % with health insurance <54% 55-69% 70-79% 80-89% >90%Crime Rate Crime acts per 100,000 people >8,000 5001-8000 5000-3001 3000-1001 1001-0Access to Public Transport % within 0.25 miles of bus stop <30% 30-50% 50-70% 70-90% >90%

11

12

Dimension Weight Indicator Metric Actual Value Ind. Weight Score Weight*ScoreSocial Equity 0.33 Health Status % w/no unhealthy days 80.4 0.30 4 1.2

(ratio other:white) 0.87Health Insurance % w/ health insurance 84.5 0.30 4 1.2Crime Crime acts per 100,000 people 4103.3 0.20 3 0.6Public Trans. Access % w/ in 0.25 mi. of bus stop 90 0.20 5 1

Social Equity Score: 4

Economic Vital i ty 0.25 Community Wealth Median household income ($) 39140 0.40 3 1.2Unemployment Rates % unemployed (ratio black:white) 2.67 0.30 2 0.6Housing Affordabil i ty % spend >35% income on housing 25.68 0.30 4 1.2

Economic Vital i ty Score: 3

Environment 0.42 Ozone warnings Days per year 37.4 0.15 5 0.75Water use Gallons per person per day 145 0.30 4 1.2Green space Acres per 1000 residents 21 0.05 2 0.1Waste Reduction Rate % reduction since 1991 45 0.25 4 1Transp. Mode Breakdown % non-SOV use journey to work com 56 0.25 4 1

Environment Score: 4.05

Total Score: 3.77

12

13

Environment

Ozone Warning Days

• Average Air Quality Index from 2001-2007 for Orange County was 37.375.

• Orange County Scores a 5 on the Air Quality Index

• Air Quality Index is a measure of atmospheric pollution levels.

Data Source: “Air Qualtiy Index Report". US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monaqi.html?st~NC~North%20Carolina>.

Score

Air Quality Index14

Water Use• Orange County water

consumption is 145gpd1(2000)

• OWASA2 data indicate values of 121gpd(2004) and 108gpd(2005), respectively.

• US per capita water consumption is 166gpd(2000).

• Water consumption in Netherlands is only 27gpd.

Data Source: 1 USGS: Data files for Estimated Use of Water in the United States, 2000. 09 July 2000. United States Geological Survey. 10 Oct. 2007. <http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/ 2000/index.html>

2 Fiscal Year 2005 Sustainability Report. 12 Oct. 2005. Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). 10 Oct. 2007. <http://www.owasa.org/pages/ Sustain_Report_Final_Version_10_12_05.pdf>

Score

Gallons per person per day

Min 1st quartile Median 2nd quartile Max55 165 218 367 29737

Data Calculated for all counties in NC

15

Green Space

• The acres of greenspaceper 1000 residents for Chapel Hill was 21

• This gives a score of 2 for this indicator through the AHP system.

• The amount of greenspaceconsisted of parks and trails within the city limits

Data Source: Chapel Hill Community Indicators

Score

Acres per 1,000 residents16

Waste Reduction Rate

• Orange County’s current waste reduction rate is 45%

• This gives a score of 4 for this indicator

• In 1991-1992, the average person threw away 1.36 tons of garbage every year – this has been reduced to 0.75 tons in 2004-2005

Data Sources:http://www.co.orange.nc.us/recycling/stats.asp OCDSWM: Blair Pollock, Muriel Williman

Score

% tons of waste recycled17

Transportation Mode Breakdown

• Percentage of non-SOV journey to work travel by person.

• Chapel Hill’s value is 56%.• The national average is 24%.• Carbon Reduction

Programme (CRed) recommends a 60% reduction in carbon emissions.

• Score of 4 is a 60% reduction in SOV use.

Data Source: 2005 Chapel Hill Data Book: Section 7 Transportation. Town of Chapel Hill. http://www.townofchapelhill.org/DocumentView.asp?DID=569Journey to Work: 2000. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf

Score

% non-SOV use journey towork commute by person 18

Environment

Ozone Warning Days Water Use

Transportation Mode Breakdown

Waste ReductionGreen Space

Overall 4.1

19

20

Economic Vitality

Community Wealth• The Median Household

Income of Chapel Hill was $39140 in 2000.

• Chapel Hill scores a 3 on Median Household Income.

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American FactFinder. http://factfinder.census.gov

Score

Median household income (dollars)

Chapel Hill Income Distribution

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

>1010

-14.9

15-24

.925

-34.9

35-49

.950

-74.9

75-99

.910

0-149.9

150-1

99.9>20

0

Household Income

Hou

seho

lds

21

Housing Affordability

• Significant because of links to economic vitality in the community– disposable income– ability of residents to obtain

loans • 25.7% of Orange County

residents spend over 35% of their income on housing

• This gives a score of 4 for affordability of housing

Data Source: US Census Bureau

Score

% who spend >35% of income onhousing 22

Unemployment Rate

• Unemployment Rate Blacks: 12.3%Whites: 4.6% Hispanics: ?Overall: 5.5%

• Orange County Scores a 2• OC: ratio 2.67

US: ratio 2.45NC: ratio 2.38

Data Source: 2006 American Community Survey. US Census Bureau. <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_lang=en&_ts+144684179550>.

Score

% unemployed (ratio black:white)

CalculationsRatio black:white

12.3%/4.6% = 2.6723

Economic Vitality

Housing Affordability

Unemployment Rate

Community Wealth

24

25

Social Equity

Crime Rate

• The Index Crime Rate for Orange County was 4,103.30 in 2006.

• Orange County Scores a 3 on Index Crime Rate

Data Source: “North Carolina Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". NC SBI. <http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/Default.htm>

Score

Reported Index Crimes per100,000 people 26

Public Transportation Access

• Percent of Chapel Hill living within ¼ mile1 of a bus stop

• Chapel Hill’s City-Planner estimates over 90%2-- a 5 on our scale

• Data not available currently; we recommend it be gathered

Data Source: 1. Ewing, R (2000). Pedestrian and transit-friendly design. Third National Access Management Conference. Federal Highway Administration.2. Bonk, David. Personal communication. November 6, 2007.

Score

% within ¼ miles of bus stop27

Health Status

• During the past 30 days, for about how many days did poor physical or mental health keep you from doing your usual activities, such as self-care, work, or recreation?

• % who answered “none” in Orange County = 80.4

• Equity ratio other:whiteanswering “none” = 0.87

• Overall Score = 4/5

Data Source: North Carolina Center for Health Statistics, www.schs.state.nc.us

Score

% with no unhealthy days per year, equity ratio, respectively 28

Health Insurance

• Orange County data used for Chapel Hill

• Orange County health insurance coverage: 84.5%

• Chapel Hill Score: 4• 49.4% of non-white v.

94.3% of white residence have health insurance

• Health care debts are the number one cause of bankruptcies

Data Source: North Carolina Center for Health Statistics. 2006 data

Score

% with health insurance29

Social Equity

Public Transportation Access

Health InsuranceHealth Status

Overall 4.0

30

Chapel Hill’s Overall Sustainability Score

31

32

33

34

• AHP score of 3.8 out of 5

• Improve specific, low scoring indicators

• Further develop AHP process

35

• Complex task, pilot project

• Mix of ideal and available indicators

• Value now, but will grow with use and time

• A comprehensive evaluation is feasible and could serve as a valuable tool

36