Geospatial data about Boston, Massachusetts Neighborhoods. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

The Healthy Neighborhoods Study (HNS) aimed to better understand the relationship between urban development, neighborhood conditions, and population health in Boston. More specifically, the research completed was the planning and baseline phase for a longer 9 year longitudinal study with two overarching aims: to determine how to measure and evaluate the mid- to long-term impacts of transit-oriented development on neighborhood conditions and population health, and to better understand the drivers and mechanisms that mediate the relationship between neighborhoods and health. The study tracks measures in health, development, neighborhood conditions and resident experiences in nine urban centers in the Boston-metro area.

Geospatial data about City of Springfield, Massachusetts Neighborhoods. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Throughout history, government and industries have neglected investments in some neighborhoods, especially communities of color, who are more likely to have fewer resources.

ESRI polygon feature class representing City of Somerville, Massachusetts neighborhood boundaries.

Analysis of ‘Boston Housing’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/schirmerchad/bostonhoustingmlnd on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Context

The dataset for this project originates from the UCI Machine Learning Repository. The Boston housing data was collected in 1978 and each of the 506 entries represent aggregated data about 14 features for homes from various suburbs in Boston, Massachusetts.

Acknowledgements

https://github.com/udacity/machine-learning

https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Housing

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Demographic Data for Boston’s Neighborhoods, 1950-2019

Boston is a city defined by the unique character of its many neighborhoods. The historical tables created by the BPDA Research Division from U.S. Census Decennial data describe demographic changes in Boston’s neighborhoods from 1950 through 2010 using consistent tract-based geographies. For more analysis of these data, please see Historical Trends in Boston's Neighborhoods. The most recent available neighborhood demographic data come from the 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS tables also present demographic data for Census-tract approximations of Boston’s neighborhoods. For pdf versions of the data presented here plus earlier versions of the analysis, please see Boston in Context.

The dynamics of forest cover and the ecosystem services they provide are shaped by the land use and management decisions of thousands of individual landowners and the land use planning and conservation actions of towns and environmental organizations. Through an interdisciplinary investigation of the land use and forest conservation practices across two urban-to-rural transects between Boston and Central Massachusetts, we investigated the complex and coupled socio-ecological processes that shape the structure, function, and transformation of forested landscapes and how examine these processes may vary along urban-to-rural gradients. The survey data archived here is one element of this larger coupled natural-human systems project. The Community and Conservation Survey collected data regarding landowners’ attitudes and management practices on a variety of issues linked to conservation and the use of their own land. The objectives were to collect data that (a) increase our understanding of how landowners’ attitudes and behaviors vary across urban-to-rural gradients and (b) can be coupled with biogeochemical measurements across the study region to model variation in management behaviors.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Mass General Brigham Medical Group Suburban Massachusetts Inc

2020 Census data for the city of Boston, Boston neighborhoods, census tracts, block groups, and voting districts. In the 2020 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau divided Boston into 207 census tracts (~4,000 residents) made up of 581 smaller block groups. The Boston Planning and Development Agency uses the 2020 tracts to approximate Boston neighborhoods. The 2020 Census Redistricting data also identify Boston’s voting districts.

For analysis of Boston’s 2020 Census data including graphs and maps by the BPDA Research Division and Office of Digital Cartography and GIS, see 2020 Census Research Publications

For a complete official data dictionary, please go to 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Chapter 6. Data Dictionary. 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File

2020 Census Tracts In Boston

2020 Census Block Groups In Boston

Boston Neighborhood Boundaries Approximated By 2020 Census Tracts

Boston Voting District Boundaries

During 2023, the number of passengers transported on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (WMATA) network amounted to approximately ***** million. Bus and heavy rail account for the largest share of passengers transported, each mode recording a ridership of over ** and ** million respectively in 2023.The WMATA is a public agency responsible for public transit in Greater Boston, Massachusetts. It operates all five major terrestrial mass transit vehicles: heavy rail (the Blue, Orange, and Red Lines), light rail (the Green Lines and the Ashmont-Mattapan High-Speed), the Commuter rail, trolleybuses (the Silver Line and other routes in the suburbs of Boston), and motor buses (MBTA bus).

Summary

The State of Early Education and Care in Boston: Supply, Demand, Affordability, and Quality, is the first in what is planned as a recurrent landscape survey of early childhood, preschool and childcare programs in every neighborhood of Boston. It focuses on potential supply, demand and gaps in child-care seats (availability, quality and affordability). This report’s estimates set a baseline understanding to help focus and track investments and policy changes for early childhood in the city.

This publication is a culmination of efforts by a diverse data committee representing providers, parents, funding agencies, policymakers, advocates, and researchers. The report includes data from several sources, such as American Community Survey, Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, Boston Public Health Commission, City of Boston, among others. For detailed information on methodology, findings and recommendations, please access the full report here

The first dataset contains all Census data used in the publication. Data is presented by neighborhoods:

• Population 0 – 5 years;
• Population 0 – 2 years;
• Population 3 – 5 years;
• Race/ethnicity for children 0 – 4 years (White, non-Hispanic; Black; Asian; Hispanic/Latinx);
• Family type (married couples, female householder, male householder);
• Poverty status;
• Family median income in the past 12 months;
• Average cost of care as a percentage of median family income (infant, preschool);
• Share of families that cannot afford care (infant, preschool)

The Boston Planning & Development Agency Research Division analyzed 2013-2017 American Community Survey data to estimate numbers by ZIP-Code. The Boston Opportunity Agenda combined that data by the approximate neighborhoods and estimated cost of care and affordability.

Additional notes:

• Record Type: Each record represents a ZIP-Code defined neighborhood. See list below for detailed information on Boston ZIP-Codes used to create each one of the 15 neighborhoods.
• Data Quality: Numbers presented here came from 2013-2017 American Community Survey data. Therefore, these are ESTIMATES and have margin of errors. The smaller the geographical unit, the greater the margin of error. The Boston Planning & Development Agency analyzed the data to estimate numbers by ZIP-Code.
• Race/Ethnicity: Non-White Hispanics may be double counted due to data limitations.
• Cost of Care: The average cost of care as a percentage of median family income was computed assuming the annual average cost of infant care was $19,877 and the average cost of preschool care was $ 13,771 (Childcare Aware of America, 2019). For each neighborhood we estimated the impact of child care (infant and preschool) on its median annual family income.
• Affordability: The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sets a standard regarding the affordability of child care, where the annual cost of child care should not exceed 10 percent of household annual income. Using this 10% threshold, we estimated that to afford market rate infant care, a family’s annual income would have to be at least $198,770. The census income bracket closest to this income was a family income of $150,000– 199,999. To afford preschool care, a family's annual income should be at least $137,710. Thus, the census income bracket that encompass this income is $125,000 - 149,999. For both infant and preschool care, we underestimated the number of families that can afford care.

HOLC, in consultation with local real estate professionals and local policymakers, categorized neighborhoods in hundreds of cities in the United States into four types: Best (A), Still Desirable (B), Definitely Declining (C), and Hazardous (D). So-called “hazardous” zones were colored red on these maps. These zones were then used to approve or deny credit-lending and mortgage-backing by banks and the Federal Housing Administration. The descriptions provided by HOLC in their reports rely heavily on race and ethnicity as critical elements in assigning these grades. According to the University of Richmond's Mapping Inequality project, “Arguably the HOLC agents in the other two hundred-plus cities graded through this program adopted a consistently white, elite standpoint or perspective. HOLC assumed and insisted that the residency of African-Americans and immigrants, as well as working-class whites, compromised the values of homes and the security of mortgages” (Mapping Inequality). HOLC’s classifications were one contributory factor in underinvestment in a neighborhood, and generally, although not always, closed off many, especially people of color, from the credit necessary to purchase their own homes.The 15 Worcester neighborhood zones included on the map are ordered from Zone 1 (categorized as "Best") to Zone 15, with the highest numbered zones included in the least desirable "Hazardous" category. The exact descriptions used by HOLC to classify the neighborhoods in 1936 are included, and therefore may contain some disturbing language. Many scholars and institutions have focused their efforts on tracking the effects the 1930s redlining maps still have today. The Mapping Inequality project by the University of Richmond has collected and analyzed a comprehensive set of redlining maps for more than 200 cities in the U.S. One of their conclusions is that, for most cities, there are striking and persistent geographic similarities between redlined zones and currently vulnerable areas even after eighty years. See the Mapping Inequality website for more information (https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining).This digitized version prepared by the Worcester Regional Research Bureau was based on a scanned copy from the National Archives, obtained thanks to Dr. Robert Nelson, the Digital Scholarship Lab, and the rest of his team at Mapping Inequality at the University of Richmond. Dr. Nelson worked with The Research Bureau directly to track it down in the Archives.Informing Worcester is the City of Worcester's open data portal where interested parties can obtain public information at no cost.

Year 2018, continuous measurements, every 15 minutes, were made of depth and stream temperature in a small headwater stream, Saw Mill Brook, Burlington, MA, draining a highly suburban catchment (72% residential). Discharge is determined from stage using discharge vs stage regressions.

Year 2015, continuous measurements, every 15 minutes, were made of depth and stream temperature in a small headwater stream, Saw Mill Brook, Burlington, MA, draining a highly suburban catchment (72% residential). Discharge is determined from stage using discharge vs stage regressions.

Year 2015, continuous measurements, every 15 minutes were made of conductivity, water temperature in a small headwater stream, Saw Mill Brook, Burlington, MA, draining a highly suburban catchment (72% residential) in the Ipswich River watershed.

Year 2012, continuous measurements, every 5 minutes for the first deployment and 15 minutes until the end of the year, were made of conductivity, water temperature in a small headwater stream, Saw Mill Brook, Burlington, MA, draining a highly suburban catchment (72% residential). in the Ipswich River watershed.

Year 2003, continuous measurements, every 15 minutes, were made of stage, water temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen in a small headwater stream, Saw Mill Brook, Burlington, MA, draining a highly suburban catchment (72% residential). Measurements are for part of the ice free season (June – December). Discharge is determined from stage using discharge vs stage regressions. Several day gaps occur periodically due to removal for recalibration.

Year 2019, 2020, and 2021 continuous measurements, every 15 minutes, were made of depth and stream temperature in a small headwater stream, Saw Mill Brook, Burlington, MA, draining a highly suburban catchment (72% residential) in the Ipswich River watershed. Discharge is determined from stage using discharge vs stage regressions.