Manhattan Waste Management
9
Josh Snow 16 May 2013 GIS Final Cafeteria Culture is a nonprofit organization working in NYC public schools to increase awareness regarding individual waste and how careless behavior regarding waste relates directly to climate change. As an intern at Cafeteria Culture, I was inspired to map the public schools within NYC (starting with Manhattan) that have active sustainability programs pertaining to waste management. Multiple organizations exist within the city that work to achieve a healthier society and environment for today and tomorrow. With access to these nonprofits, I gathered information from their databases mapping schools in each community district that have working programs in each, then drawing correlations between this outcome and data on income levels per community district and as well recycling diversion rates of each community district. To begin the process, I downloaded the Manhattan community district shapefile from NYC Open Data. Loaded into ArcMap, I added a field to the attribute table entitled ‘Diversion Rate,’ and then inputting the recycling diversion rates per community district from Department of Sanitation data. Opening the Preferences tab, under Symbology I created a color ramp to display the variations within the diversion rate data, under the Classifi- cation table, I assigned the different percentage rates a rank: high, medium, or low. Thus producing the first thematic map of the set. For map 2, Income Levels per community district, I downloaded census tract data as a shapefile from the 2010 US Census Bureau. Overlaying the community district layer, I Unioned the two layers together to determine which data from the census fell within each community district. From the new attribute table, I looked at median income per tract within the community district, added them, and divided the sum by its parts. To properly display the data, I followed the same method as in the previous map. As I had expected, it was now evident that income and diversion rates had a direct correlation with one another. Map 3 observed programs within NYC public schools (first in Manhattan, other boroughs to follow). The theory was that those districts with the best diversion rate and highest income would have the most programs within their schools. I downloaded the NYC public school shapefile provided by Professor Metts, and manually identified the schools that had either 1 or two programs. No school had more than two programs on its grounds. I displayed this as a proportional dot analysis symbol, allowing for all schools to hold 0 value represented as small black dots, schools with 1 program a value of 1, represented as a larger green circle and finally 2 programs with a value of 2 and the largest, darkest green circle. In fact, the data showed there is little to no correlation between income levels/diversion rates and programs within schools. Perhaps because the data only spans the course of 2 years, we will begin to see a trend over the following years to come. The final map set a ranking order to determine which district currently holds the best waste management methods by adding the schools map and the diversion rate map. Income was left out, as this can be a negative effect on the overall data, isolating certain communities that would otherwise rank medium or high on the scale. To rank these two aspects, I took districts with no school program participation and assigned them a value of zero, those with 1-3 programs per district received a value of 1, 4-8 a value of 2, 9-13 a value of 3. For the diversion rate map, districts with low diversion rate received a value of 1, medium 2, high 3. Adding the two groups together provided a range between 1 and 6. To narrow this to three categories I assigned districts with rankings from 1-2 a LOW ranking or 1, 3-4 a MEDIUM ranking or 2, and 5-6 a HIGH ranking or 3 in the attribute table. Then producing a final thematic map illustrating the effectiveness of each community district’s management of waste. OVERVIEW
description
DETERMINE THE CORRELATION BETWEEN RECYCLING DIVERSION RATES AND INCOME LEVELS WITHIN MANHATTAN COMMUNITY DISTRICTS. JUXTAPOSE THE OUTCOME WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN NEW YORK CITY SCHOOLS.
Transcript of Manhattan Waste Management
Josh Snow16 May 2013
GIS Final
Cafeteria Culture is a nonpro�t organization working in NYC public schools to increase awareness regarding individual waste and how careless behavior regarding waste relates directly to climate change. As an intern at Cafeteria Culture, I was inspired to map the public schools within NYC (starting with Manhattan) that have active sustainability programs pertaining to waste management. Multiple organizations exist within the city that work to achieve a healthier society and environment for today and tomorrow. With access to these nonpro�ts, I gathered information from their databases mapping schools in each community district that have working programs in each, then drawing correlations between this outcome and data on income levels per community district and as well recycling diversion rates of each community district.
To begin the process, I downloaded the Manhattan community district shape�le from NYC Open Data. Loaded into ArcMap, I added a �eld to the attribute table entitled ‘Diversion Rate,’ and then inputting the recycling diversion rates per community district from Department of Sanitation data. Opening the Preferences tab, under Symbology I created a color ramp to display the variations within the diversion rate data, under the Classi�-cation table, I assigned the di�erent percentage rates a rank: high, medium, or low. Thus producing the �rst thematic map of the set.
For map 2, Income Levels per community district, I downloaded census tract data as a shape�le from the 2010US Census Bureau. Overlaying the community district layer, I Unioned the two layers together to determine which data from the census fell within each community district. From the new attribute table, I looked at median income per tract within the community district, added them, and divided the sum by its parts. To properly display the data, I followed the same method as in the previous map. As I had expected, it was now evident that income and diversion rates had a direct correlation with one another.
Map 3 observed programs within NYC public schools (�rst in Manhattan, other boroughs to follow). The theory was that those districts with the best diversion rate and highest income would have the most programs within their schools. I downloaded the NYC public school shape�le provided by Professor Metts, and manually identi�ed the schools that had either 1 or two programs. No school had more than two programs on its grounds. I displayed this as a proportional dot analysis symbol, allowing for all schools to hold 0 value represented as small black dots, schools with 1 program a value of 1, represented as a larger green circle and �nally 2 programs with a value of 2 and the largest, darkest green circle. In fact, the data showed there is little to no correlation between income levels/diversion rates and programs within schools. Perhaps because the data only spans the course of 2 years, we will begin to see a trend over the following years to come.
The �nal map set a ranking order to determine which district currently holds the best waste management methods by adding the schools map and the diversion rate map. Income was left out, as this can be a negative e�ect on the overall data, isolating certain communities that would otherwise rank medium or high on the scale. To rank these two aspects, I took districts with no school program participation and assigned them a value of zero, those with 1-3 programs per district received a value of 1, 4-8 a value of 2, 9-13 a value of 3. For the diversion rate map, districts with low diversion rate received a value of 1, medium 2, high 3. Adding the two groups together provided a range between 1 and 6. To narrow this to three categories I assigned districtswith rankings from 1-2 a LOW ranking or 1, 3-4 a MEDIUM ranking or 2, and 5-6 a HIGH ranking or 3 in the attribute table. Then producing a �nal thematic map illustrating the e�ectiveness of each community district’s management of waste.
OVERVIEW
OBJECTIVEDETERMINE THE CORRELATION BETWEEN RECYCLING DIVERSION RATES AND INCOME LEVELS WITHIN MANHATTAN COMMUNITY DISTRICTS. JUXTAPOSE THE OUTCOME WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN NEW YORK CITY SCHOOLS.
HYPOTHESISDISTRICTS WITH THE HIGHEST DIVERSION RATE, INCOME LEVELWILL HAVE THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS.
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NEW YORK CITYGIS SPRING 2013 JOSH SNOW
WHAT IS DIVERSION?
nyc.gov
LOW: 9 - 14%
MEDIUM: 15 - 22%
HIGH: 23 - 30%
MANHATTAN RECYCLING DIVERSION RATES BY COMMUNITY DISTRICT (2012)
D1
D2
D3
D4D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D11
D12
BASED ON NYC DEAPARTMENT OF SANITATION STATISTICS
LOW: $55,000 - $75,000
MEDIUM: $75,000 - $150,000
HIGH: $150,000 - $250,000
MANHATTAN INCOME LEVELS BY COMMUNITY DISTRICT
BASED ON DATA FROM 2010 US CENSUS BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
D1
D2
D3
D4D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D11
D12
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMSIN MANHATTAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY COMMUNITY DISTRICT
D1
D2
D3
D4D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D11
D12NYC PUBLIC SCHOOL
1 PROGRAM/SCHOOL
2 PROGRAMS/SCHOOL
BASED ON PROGRAMS OFFERED BY NYC NONPROFITS INCLUDING: CAFETERIA CULTURE, GREEN SCHOOLS ALLIANCE, DoS GOLDEN APPLE AWARDS, GROWNYC, LOWER MANHATTAN GREEN SCHOOLS COLLECTIVE
D1
D2
D3
D4D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D11
D12HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY DISTRICT SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT RANKING
CONCLUSION THOUGH THE DATA SHOWED THERE IS LITTLE TO NO CORRELATION BETWEEN INCOME LEVELS/DIVERSION RATES AND PROGRAMS WITHIN SCHOOLS, IT IS POSSIBLE A TREND WILL BE NOTICEABLE IF OBSERVED OVER THE COURSE OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS AT AN ANNUAL MEASURE.
SOURCES AND PARTNERS
nyc.govwny.orgUS Census Bureau, Department of CommerceNYC Department of Sanitation GrowNYCCafeteria CultureGreen Schools AllianceLower Manhattan Green Schools CollectiveStephen Metts Amanda Smart
