LC ED 2018

Slides for my 2018 Saint Louis University Learning Community ED Talk

Transcript

1. DEFENDING URBAN SPACE: SYSTEMATIC STREET CLOSURES IN ST. LOUIS CHRIS PRENER, PH.D. LEARNING COMMUNITY ED TALKS 2018
2. CONTRIBUTORS Joel Jennings, Ph.D. Taylor Braswell, M.A. Abby Block
 Andrew Smith
 Jeffrey Meyer
 Stephanie Fortune Kyle Miller, B.A. Abbey Curran
 Cree Foeller
 Maddie Baumgart
 

3. QUESTION 1 How do our social 
 experiences shape the 
 built environment? ?
7. A SEGMENTED STREET GRID
8. A SEGMENTED STREET GRID
9. PUBLIC SAFETY & BARRIERS
10. SIMPLE CLOSURES
11. VANDEVENTER Enright Ave Delmar Blvd W Bell Pl N Newstead Ave
12. CUL-DE-SACS
13. Botanical Ave Shenandoah Ave Tower Grove Ave SHAW
14. POCKET PARKS
15. Laclede Ave N Boyle Ave Forest Park Ave CENTRAL WEST END
16. MULTIPLE CLOSURES
17. Gibson Ave S Newstead Ave Chouteau Ave Arco Ave FOREST PARK SOUTHEAST
18. Gibson Ave S Newstead Ave Chouteau Ave Arco Ave FOREST PARK SOUTHEAST
19. BARRIER LOCATIONS Current Barrier Density City of 
 St. Louis Projection:
 NAD 1983 Missouri State Plane East greater density n of barriers = 270 Data:
 Equal interval classes; k-density raster output of barrier point locations
20. QUESTION 2 How does the built
 environment shape our
 social experiences - specifically,
 does a neighborhood with more barriers have less crime? ?
21. rho = 0.441 (p < 0.001)
22. QUESTION 3 If barrier density is 
 positively related to crime
 at the neighborhood level,
 are blocks that are closed safer than the surrounding neighborhood? ?
23. “ISLANDS IN A STORM”
24. QUESTION 3 - BLOCK LEVEL EFFECTS ON CRIME CITY-WIDE RESULTS This analysis focuses on violent crime counts because of the high number of blocks with a “0” population. Closed blocks have, on average, higher violent crime rates. Category n mean Not Blocked 15037 0.365 Blocked 959 0.556 W = 6397000, p < .001, d = .143
25. QUESTION 3 - BLOCK LEVEL EFFECTS ON CRIME CITY-WIDE RESULTS This analysis focuses on part 1 crime counts because of the high number of blocks with a “0” population. Closed blocks have, on average, higher part 1 crime rates. Category n mean Not Blocked 15037 1.509 Blocked 959 2.578 W = 5401200, p < .001, d = .262
26. QUESTION 4 Do barriers operate with
 different consequences in
 different parts of the city? ?
27. LOCAL EFFECTS? Current Barrier Density greater density n of barriers = 270 Data:
 Equal interval classes; k-density raster output of barrier point locations
28. LOCAL EFFECTS? n of barriers = 270 Segregation Current Barrier Density greater density Data:
 Equal interval classes; k-density raster output of barrier point locations
29. LOCAL EFFECTS? n of barriers = 270 Current Barrier Density greater density Data:
 Equal interval classes; k-density raster output of barrier point locations 1 - 6 Barriers per
 Neighborhood 7 - 12 13 - 17 18 - 23 24 - 29 Data:
 Equal interval classes n of valid neighborhoods = 49
30. NEIGHBORHOOD RESULTS This analysis focuses on violent crime counts because of the high number of blocks with a “0” population. 6 of the 49 neighborhoods had a statistically significant mean difference between open and closed blocks. Neighborhood % closed mean, open mean, closed p d Downtown West 1.6% 0.434 0 p < .001 0.402 Covenant Blu / Grand Center 9.7% 0.554 0.077 p < .001 0.278 The Ville 10.9% 0.575 0.077 p < .001 0.431 Kingsway East 19.2% 1.086 2.158 p < .001 -0.616 Penrose 4.5% 0.627 0.182 p < .001 0.322 Skinker DaBaliviere 36.4% 0.147 0.535 p < .001 -0.579
31. NEIGHBORHOOD RESULTS This analysis focuses on part 1 crime counts because of the high number of blocks with a “0” population. 9 of the 49 neighborhoods had a statistically significant mean difference between open and closed blocks. Neighborhood % closed mean, open mean, closed p d Tiffany 16.4% 1.125 2.909 p < .05 -0.832 Downtown West 1.6% 2.244 14.833 p < .05 -2.505 Central West End 32.9% 2.946 4.591 p < .05 -0.220 Vandeventer 3.7% 1.924 0.333 p < .05 0.607 Visitation Park 38.9% 1.909 5.571 p < .05 -1.190 Jeff Vanderlou 6.2% 1.292 2.346 p < .05 -0.429 West End 25.3% 2.043 3.915 p < .05 -0.474 Penrose 4.5% 1.897 1.000 p < .05 0.258 Skinker DaBaliviere 36.4% 1.773 3.070 p < .05 -0.456
32. These slides are available via SpeakerDeck:
 https://speakerdeck.com/chrisprener/lc-ed-2018 LEARN MORE THANKS FOR COMING! Caution Text You can find out more about our project and download our data on the locations of all known barriers at:
 https://chris-prener.github.io/barriers/ chris.prener@slu.edu
 https://chris-prener.github.io
 , :