GIS WORK SAMPLE
THIAGO LEE 2020
Queens Public Library Proposal - 3 New Branches Multicriteria Analysis Queens, New York 2014
New Residential Devel.
Higher concentration to lower conc. (x2)
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
+
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
Adults without high school diplomas
!
!
!
Higher concentration to lower conc.
!
!
! !
!
Distance to Library
!
!
! ! !
!
!
Far to Close (x3)
!
!
!
!
!
! !
+
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
Far
1mi
+ Pop. under 18 yrs. old
Higher concentration to lower conc.
=
! !
Multicriteria analysis
!
Higher need for new branches Higher need to lower need
+
!
! !
Higher (39) Lower (9) !
Current Libraries Proposed Libraries
Pop. born outside of the US
Higher concentration to lower conc.
! !
!
+
! !
Pop. to whom English is a 2nd lang.
Higher concentration to lower conc.
!
Queens
1 Higher 1mi
2 mi
N
Author: Thiago Sang Hyun Lee - Oct.15.2019 Sources: NYC - Department of City Planning - Information Technology and Telecommunications Department (2014); U.S. Census Bureau (2013); NYC - Department of City Planning (2018); NYC - Department of City Planning (2016);
Distribution and Concentration Metal Industry NYC in 1922
Central Park Metal and Metal Products
1
2 miles
N
Author: Thiago Sang Hyun Lee. 11/24/2019 Sources: Lee (2019); NYC Department of City Planning (2016)
New Residential Units Queens, New York 2003-2013 Bloomberg’s administration
10 Highest - Density of New Residential Units Units/acre - per NTA
6.22 4.92 3.29 3.16 2.67 2.13 1.93 1.92 1.6 1.5
(1) Old Astoria (2) North Corona (3) Hunters Point - Sunnyside - West Maspeth (4) Flushing (5) Corona (6) Queensbridge - Tavenswood - Long Island City (7) Hammels - Arvene - Edgemere (8) Astoria (9) Elmhurst (10) Jamaica 1 6
4 5 9
2
8
3
10
Residential Units Density Units/acre - search radius: 1/8 mi 0.0 - 0.7 0.7 - 1.3 1.3 - 2.1
2.7 - 4.1 4.1 - 5.6 5.6 - 7.5
2.1 - 2.7
7.5 - 11.6 11.6 - 174.5
N
7
1
2 mi
Author: Thiago Sang Hyun Lee - Oct.13.2019 Sources: NYC - Department of City Planning - Information Technology Department (2018); NYC - Department of City Planning (2018); NYC - Department of City Planning (2016);
Street trees density
Networked distances along the street Straight-line distance buffers
McCarren Park
McCarren Park environs, Brooklyn, NYC 2016
0.5 mile
Compared areas
Density distribution
Networked distances along the street (Service Areas) & Straight-line distance buffers (1/8 mile increments from centroid of McCarren Park)
Networked distances along the street (Service Areas) (1/8 mile increments from centroid)
N
Density distribution
Straight-line distance buffers (1/8 mile increments from centroid)
(trees/acre)
Service Areas SLD buffers
(trees/acre) 0 - 3.99 3.99 - 5.46
McCarren Park
5.46 - 5.87
5.74 - 5.95
Pedestrian streets
5.87 - 6.09 Pedestrian streets Centroid of McCarren Park
5.95 - 6.00 Pedestrian streets Centroid of McCarren Park
Centroid of McCarren Park
0-660 ft Areas (Acres) Tree count Densities (trees/acre)
20.77 83 4.00
Service areas 66013201320 ft 1980 ft 64.02 137.30 376 5.87
836 6.09
19802640 ft 167.41 914 5.46
0 - 3.75 3.75 - 5.74
Straight line distance buffers 0-660 ft 660132019801320 ft 1980 ft 2640 ft 31.42 94.25 157.08 217.14 118 3.76
561 5.95
902 5.74
1301 5.99
Author: Thiago Sang Hyun Lee. 06/11/2019 Sources: NYC Dept of Information Technology & Telecommunications (2016), NYC Department of City Planning - Borough Boundaries (2016), NYC DCP MapPLUTO (2016), NYC DCP - Census Blocks & Tracts (2019), NYC Department of Parks & Recreation (2015).
Street trees density and tax lots McCarren Park environs, Brooklyn, NYC 2016
McCarren Park
less than 5.19 5.19 - 5.64 5.64 - 5.77 5.77 - 6.82 Hypothesis 1: tree density & distance (trees/acre) N
0.5
1 mile
McCarren Park 1/8 mi 2/8 mi 3/8 mi 1/2 mi
Antithesis: tree density & census tracts (trees/acre)
1.74 - 3.57 3.57 - 4.58 4.58 - 6.13 6.13 - 7.57 7.57 - 14.78
Hypothesis 2: tree density & residential lots per census tract (lots/acre)
1.58 - 3.10 3.10 - 7.21 7.21 - 9.85 9.85 - 13.1 13.1 - 19.0
tree density & total lots per census tract (lots/acre)
0.57 - 4.13 4.13 - 6.21 6.21 - 7.44 7.44 - 10.9 10.9 - 21.1
Author: Thiago Sang Hyun Lee. 01/10/2019 Source: NYC Dept of Information Technology & Telecommunications (2016), NYC Department of City Planning - Borough Boundaries (2016), NYC DCP MapPLUTO (2016), NYC DCP - Census Blocks & Tracts (2019), NYC Department of Parks & Recreation (2015).
POPULATION DENSITY COMPARISON McKenzie county, ND 2010-2015
McKenzie 3.36
Population density hab/sq.mi (2015) 0.0 - 8.5 42.5 - 75.5 8.5 - 23.5 75.5 - 192 192 - 48,381 23.5 - 42.5
Density growth rate % (2010-2015) -18 - -3 6 - 16 -3 - 1 16 - 77 77 - 205 1-6
Williams 77%
McKenzie 205%
250
500
1000 mi
N
Sources: US Census Bureau – PEPTCOMP (2016); US Census Bureau – ACS (2016); US Census Bureau – TIGER (2016).
Public Wi-Fi hotspots By type and location Manhattan 2016
!!
!
Free access to Wi-Fi is very limited at places where people can sit and utilize it.
Limited Free
!
Partner Site
!
!
! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Free & Limited (12%)
Partner Site (0.2%)
Outdoor (4%) HP in Green Spaces (11.8%)
Outdoor & Free (2%)
!
! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !! !! !!
!
!
Free
!
The majority of the Wi-Fi access in Manhattan is free. But they are not equally distributed. The focus is on some main avenues and neighborhoods. Very few of the hotspots are in green spaces (93 out of 789 hotspots), and even less are outdoors (34). There are only 15 that are outdoor and free.
! !
Free Wi-Fi (87.6%)
Hotspots NOT in Green Spaces (88,2%)
! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
Bronx Queens
!
Manhattan
Staten Island
Brooklyn N
Miles .5
1
Author: Thiago Sang Hyun Lee (09/16/2019) Data Sources: NYC Dept of City Planning (2016), NYC Dept of Information Technology & Telecommunications (2016), US Geological Survey (2016).
Public Wi-Fi hotspots By type, income & census tracts
Inwood**
! !!
Manhattan 2016
Fort George & Hudson Heights**
! !
!
Free
!
Limited Free
!
Partner Site
!
Manhattan median income is $59,269.
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !
45.6% of Wi-Fi hotspots are located in these tracts. Numerically it is well-distributed but spatially there are voids of free Wi-Fi in low-income ! neighborhoods.
Median household income (dollars)
Washington Heights**
11,671-52,263
35.4% of Manhattan’s census tracts are below this median. This represents 38.5% of total households.
!
!
! !! ! !!!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !
89,315-127,109 127,109-175,259
!
Morningside Heights & Noth of Harlem**
!
!
! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
52,263-89,315
Hamilton Heights & Sugar Hill**
175,259-250,000
East Harlem**
! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
**Neighborhoods with voids of free public Wi-Fi
Bronx
Queens
Alphabet City** Lower East Side**
Manhattan
Chinatown**
N Staten Brooklyn Island
Miles .5
1
Author: Thiago Sang Hyun Lee (09/16/2019) !
Data Sources: NYC Dept of City Planning (2016), NYC Dept of Information Technology & Telecommunications (2016), US Geological Survey (2016), US Census Bureau (2016).
Phase One County Selection How do life threatening impacts of opioid use differentiate across New Jersey Counties? Opioid-Related Deaths (2017)
Life Threatening Impacts of Life Threatening Opioid Use Index Impact of Opioid Low Impact Use Index (2017) Counties
Opioid-Related Hospitilizations (2017) Opioid-Related Hospitlizations (2017)
Opioid-Related Deaths (2017)
Score = 3
Score = 2
Number of Deaths
+
Number of Hospitilizations
9.3 - 10.0
53.6 - 183.4
10.0 - 15.1
183.4 - 449
15.1 - 25. 1
543.9 449 - 543.9-
15.1 - 25. 1
25.134.8 - 34.8-
High Impact Counties Index Score
449 - 543.9
25.1 - 34.8 47.6
N
931.8
N
543.9 - 931.8
931.8 - 1400
2-3
Score = 9
2-3
6-7
Score = 9
8-9
6-7 50 Miles
50 Miles
10
50 Miles
Score = 9
8-9
N
. To select our case study counties, we first had to construct an index of variables that when summed, would give us a clear picture of which counties in New Jersey were experiencing the highest rates of life threatening impacts of opioid use as well as those experiencing the lowest rates. The two criteria we chose to explore were hospitalizations due to opiod use (normalized per 100,000 people), and deaths due to opiod use (also normalized per 100,000 people). Each criterion was reclassified on a scale of 1 (least impacted) to 5 (most impacted). Following this, both criterion were summed into an index that would tell us how each county in New Jersey was impacted in regards to life threatening impacts of opioid use. While the lowest scored (Bergen) and median scored (Camden) counties were clear based on their ranks, we were presented with three counties that scored equally: Cape May, Cumberland and Gloucester. Gloucester was chosen because it had a lower rate of facilities per population.
Cumberland
4-5
Gloucester
4-5
931.8 - 1400
34.8 - 47.6
Morris
*reference maps not to scale
183.4 - 449
9.3 - 10.0
Bergen
Score = 4
53.6 - 183.4
10.0 - 15.1
N
=
Somerset
Cape May
*reference maps not to scale
50 Miles
Score
+
Opioid-Related Deaths 1
2
3
4
5
Opioid-Related Hospitilizations 1
2
3
4
5
=
2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9
11
Phase Three Demographic Analysis Who are these facilities accessible to?
Received Bachelors Degree (%) Bergen 1-Mile SA 23.7 Bergen 4-Mile SA 27.7 Bergen County 29.8 Camden 1-Mile Service Area 9.2 Camden 4-Mile Service Area 15.4 Camden County 19.7 Gloucester 1-Mile Service Area 21.2 N
N
5 Miles
5 Miles
Gloucester 4-Mile Service Area 20.8 Gloucester County 20.6 All of NJ 23.4
N
5 Miles
00
Received Bachelors Degree Rate (%)
05
10
15
20
25
30
% Bachelors Degrees % Non-White
7.6 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50
Non-White (%) Bergen 1-Mile Service Area 58.5 Bergen 4-Mile Service Area 45.4 Bergen County 29 Camden 1-Mile SA 82 Camden 4-Mile Service Area 56.7 Camden County 37
N
N
N
5 Miles
Non-White (%)
18 3.8 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100
Gloucester 1-Mile Service Area 24.3 Gloucester 4-Mile Service Area 23.9 Gloucester County 18 All of NJ 32
5 Miles
5 Miles
00
20
40
60
80
100
MAT Facility 1-Mile Service Area 4-Mile Service Area
19
THIAGO LE E t h i a g o.le e @ c o lu mb ia.e d u (781) 296-4371