Locating Healthy Environments in the GVRD

This project had two main components. One was to simply create a Health Index Map for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The second was to overlay census data on top of the Health Index Map and hopefully discover patterns. Let us take a look at these results.

Results 1

All three multi-criteria evaluation maps gave somewhat similar results. Due to the model, areas that have easy access to any of the factors have a higher health index value. This fact is still true regardless of which map is being examined. Areas that were considered healthier were regions with higher population and density. Mixed land type also played a role in higher health index values. Due to the similarities of the three results, I can say that the model is fairly robust to changes of the parameters. Here is the link to the Equal Weighting MCE map, which shows all of the information needed to understand the other two MCE maps.

For the transit user, the downtown area comes off as very healthy because of the walkability of the area. In downtown, transit stops are everywhere as well as all necessary amenities. The one thing lacking in the downtown area is the amount of accessible parks, however those who live in downtown are likely to walk more often so this may not be considered an issue. Other areas that received high values were Richmond city center, lower West and North Vancouver, parts of Burnaby, as well as parts of Surrey. Below is the MCE for transit users.


For the non-transit user, the results were also quite similar. The main difference seen was in areas that had easy access to parks and recreational centres. This is quite clear by looking at the change in weights given to the non-transit user model. Below is the MCE for non-transit users.


However, looking at the grocery store versus fast food map, one can see that some of the highly dense areas are not as healthy as once thought. These areas received high health index values in the MCE results, but these areas are also home to many fast food restaurants. This factor also has to be taken in to account. In my previous model, the assumption was made that if one was closer to a grocery store they would choose to go to the grocery store. Of course, this assumption does not apply to everyone and could be a possible source of error. Furthermore, the closeness to fast food restaurants was not considered in the MCE model; it is quite possible that some areas may be close to grocery stores but those same areas may be even closer to fast food restaurants. Here is the link for the transit user MCE overlayed by the grocery store versus fast food map. And here is the link for the non-transit MCE overlayed by the grocery store versus fast food map. In both maps the shaded region represents areas where grocery stores are closer.

In conclusion, I believe the reason why all three MCE results were similar was because of the relation between the factors. Transit stops are usually located in areas where there is higher population and density. They are also located in areas people would want to go; these places include community and recreation centres, shopping malls, grocery stores, and many other necessary amenities. Due to this reason, all the factors are pretty much similar in where they are located, hence by changing the weighting the same areas are still considered ‘healthy’. Basically, if an area has close proximity to one factor, it is likely that it also has close proximity to the other factors. However, it is also important to look at the fast food restaurant locations as well. All in all, the MCE results seem to all agree with certain areas that are considered ‘healthier’. With that said it is important to also analyse who lives where, which may answer social issues in the GVRD.

Results 2

Firstly, looking at where children live in the GVRD, it seems there is no danger in general. The majority of these DA’s (Dissemination Areas) are located in healthy areas. There seem to be some exceptions in South Delta, Surrey, Langley, Sea Island, and North of Port Moody. Other than that, the DA’s that are home to larger children populations seem to be in healthy areas. Below are the two maps where the MCE maps have been overlayed by the census data. The shaded region shows the DA's where children between the ages of 0-14 make more than 20% of the population of the DA. The first map is for the transit user MCE and the second is for the non-transit user MCE.


Next, let us look at where the elderly live in the GVRD. They also seem to generally live in fairly healthy areas. There does seem to be a larger population near the Burns Bog area which is not considered a healthy region. However, this may be due to the fact that senior homes may be located in this area. Below are the two maps where the MCE maps have been overlayed by the census data. The shaded region in this case shows the DA's where elderly between the ages of 75 and up make more than 20% of the population of the DA. The first map is for the transit user MCE and the second is for the non-transit user MCE.


Lastly, looking at where lower income families live in the GVRD; this group also seems to live in healthy areas with a few exceptions. Below are the two maps where the MCE maps have been overlayed by the census data. The shaded region in this case shows the DA's where the median household income is less $25,000. The first map is for the transit user MCE and the second is for the non-transit user MCE.