private companies and the U.S. Census. In almost all cases, data sources determined the
geographic units of analysis:
•
The BNIA and C-M studies had the most extensive variables lists, which were developed
primarily using census-based data. Their geographic units of analysis are based on census
tracks and/or block groups.
•
The JIPP and SCI used varying units of geographic analysis, depending on the data
source and type of data analysis being applied.
Ranking and Grouping Geographic Units
:
None of the studies reviewed ranked or grouped their
geographic units (neighborhoods) based on the variable analyses. An interview with the C-M
project team revealed that past iterations of the C-M Study had ranked neighborhoods. The
project team moved away from this approach because of feedback that certain communities felt
stigmatized by the rankings.
Other Forms of Variable Comparison
:
The BNIA and C-M studies displayed each neighborhood
variable relative to the citywide or countywide average. The BNIA Study also displayed the
percent change for each neighborhood variable between 2010 and 2011. These approaches allow
neighborhood variables to be tracked relative to the surrounding community and over time
without the need for an overall ranking.
Based on these lessons learned, the project team made two primary changes to the methodology
established in 2006:
•
The geographic units changed from units based on local neighborhood boundaries to
units based on the block groups used for collecting data through the U.S. Census. (The
geographic units will continue to be referred to as Neighborhood Statistical Areas
(NSAs).)
•
The statistical analysis moved away from grouping NSAs through a factor analysis to
using a standardized index which identifies whether an NSA meets the criteria to be a
high priority for investments in quality of life for a particular variable or dimension.
More detailed descriptions of the new methodology can be found in the Geographic Units and
Methods sections of this report.
2014 Quality of Life Priorities and Variables
In addition to identifying new methodological advancements and trends in contemporary quality
of life studies, the project team also sought to expand the set of variables explored in the 2014
NQL Study Update by adding up to three new variables based on additional priorities identified
as important by Chesapeake stakeholders. The selection process for these new variables is
described below; a complete list of 2014 analytical variables can be found in Table 2.
November 2014
12
