Introduction

Project Overview


Introduction to Neighborhood Change in Austin, Texas.

I have visited Austin, Texas many times and really enjoy it as a visitor. Each time I go though, a few new buildings have popped up, a couple more eateries have gone away, and those hidden free parking areas are either now metered or permit parking. It goes further than that though. Area which were traditionally depended on by artists and low income families are becoming gentrified and no longer affordable for those who lived there.

Furthermore, those areas of Austin remind me a lot of areas around the Phoenix Metro Area, which I call home. We are beginning to see a lot of rapid growth here, with similar changes in the areas around Downtown Phoenix and Arizona State University (Tempe, AZ). This brings me to my analysis of neighborhood changes in Austin, TX.

In this analysis we will be examining Census data to compare neighborhood trends between 2000 and 2010. We will do this through visually examining the data, regressions, neighborhood clustering, mapping these trends and examining change over time.

Data

Data Dictionary

LABEL VARIABLE
TRTID10 GEOID
state State examined(Texas)
county Counties examined (Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, Williamson)
Median.HH.Value00 Median home value (2000)
Foreign.Born00 Percent foreign born (2000)
Recent.Immigrant00 Percent recently immigrated (2000)
Poor.English00 Percent poor English proficiency(2000)
Veteran00 Percent veteran (2000)
Poverty00 Percent in poverty, total (2000)
Poverty.Black00 Percent in poverty, Black (2000)
Poverty.White00 Percent in poverty, White (2000)
Poverty.Hispanic00 Percent in poverty, Hispanic (2000)
Pop.Black00 Percent black, non-Hispanic (2000)
Pop.Hispanic00 Percent Hispanic (2000)
Pop.Unemp00 Percent unemployed (2000)
Pop.Manufact00 Percent manufacturing employees (2000)
Pop.SelfEmp00 Percent self-employed (2000)
Pop.Prof00 Percent professional employees (2000)
Female.LaborForce00 Percent female labor force participation (2000)
Median.HH.Value10 Median home value (2010)
Foreign.Born10 Percent foreign born (2010)
Recent.Immigrant10 Percent recently immigrated (2010)
Poor.English10 Percent poor English proficiency(2010)
Veteran10 Percent veteran (2010)
Poverty10 Percent in poverty, total (2010)
Poverty.Black10 Percent in poverty, Black (2010)
Poverty.White10 Percent in poverty, White (2010)
Poverty.Hispanic10 Percent in poverty, Hispanic (2010)
Pop.Black10 Percent black, non-Hispanic (2010)
Pop.Hispanic10 Percent Hispanic (2010)
Pop.Unemp10 Percent unemployed (2010)
Pop.Manufact10 Percent manufacturing employees (2010)
Pop.SelfEmp10 Percent self-employed (2010)
Pop.Prof10 Percent professional employees (2010)
Female.LaborForce10 Percent female labor force participation (2010)

Introducing the Data

We are using a dataset that consist of 2000 and 2010 Census tract data, and combining it with shape files for the Austin Metropolitan Area to create spatial representations of these communities. By examining changes in median home value as a dependent variable of the demographic data listed in the data dictionary to the left, we are able to see how changes in these variables can correlate with change in home value. The independent variables that we will be using are Racial and Ethnic makeup, presence of poverty, occupation and immigrant traits.

Data Source

The Census data used was made available through the Diversity and Disparities Project. They have created a dataset with 170 variables that have been harmonized from 1970 onward for analysis of changes in tracts over time.

View Data


Changes in Variables

Temporal Change in Variables

To determine temporal change in variables, we examined 2010 data as a factor of 2000 data, to see how each variable preformed over the 10 year period.

Over the first few tracts we can see that median home values increase over those 10 years. Poverty and unemployment also increased in most areas.Populations of Black community members seemed to decrease while Hispanic membership increased. As far employment is concerned, most types of employment seemed to see a decrease in workforce, while female labor force saw an increase across all areas.

5-point summary

Statistic Mean St. Dev. Min Max
TRTID10 48,423,081,109.000 114,157,310.000 48,021,950,100 48,491,021,603
HousePriceChange 1.696 0.602 0.782 8.650
FreignBornChange 1.312 0.725 0.136 5.143
RecentImmigrantChange 1.255 1.319 0.000 11.807
PoorEnglishChange 1.476 2.134 0.000 28.209
VeteranChange 0.701 0.288 0.101 3.052
PovertyChange 1.641 1.633 0.000 24.574
PovertyBlackChange 1.411 3.303 0.000 36.458
PovertyWhiteChange 1.364 1.690 0.000 20.459
PovertyHispanicChange 1.837 2.747 0.000 25.459
PopBlackChange 0.931 1.033 0.000 14.323
PopHispanicChange 1.259 0.514 0.000 3.746
PopUnempChange 1.958 1.236 0.000 8.580
PopManufactChange 0.585 0.297 0.000 2.023
PopSelfEmpChange 1.051 0.503 0.087 4.092
PopProfChange 1.013 0.352 0.078 3.442
FemaleLaborForceChange 1.008 0.161 0.231 1.612

Summary of Temporal Change

When we look at the 5-point we see a more definitive picture of the trends for all of the Austin Metropolitan Area we were seeing in the separate areas.

We are still seeing an increase in most median home values, although not all. We do see an increase in immigrant traits for most areas, although some did see no immigration at all. Poverty and unemployment did see still see an increased in most areas. Populations of Black community members did decrease across in Austin, while Hispanic membership increased. Employment decreased in manufacturing by almost half, while there was a subtle increase in professionals and self-employed individuals. Finally, the increase in female labor force is much more subtle, when examining it at the metropolitan area level.

Histogram


Visual Representations of Temporal Change

For most histograms we are able to see a smaller and more abrupt distribution on the lower side of the bel curve than the higher. This tells us that most of the variation in these variables are above the average for each- The median values are most likely higher than the means.

The median home value increased by about 1.25 in most areas, although increases of 1.5 to 2 times 2000 prices were not all that rare. The number of manufacturing workers, veterans, and Black populations all saw a pretty similar decrease, being replaced predominately by unemployment and a female workforce, but we also see a pretty wide distribution in the increase of self-employed individuals.

Correlation Plot


Correlations in Variable Change

Correlations for the Austin Metro Area are pretty subtle in most cases, with the strongest correlations being positive.

Some of the strongest are the expected, with there being a strong correlation between recent immigration, being foreign born and poor English proficiency. We were able to see that the highest contributor to an increase in poverty was an increase in the poverty of white individuals, with Hispanics being second. We did see a pretty strong correlation between house values and the increase in professional workforce. Finally, we are able to see that a large number of foreign born community members are Hispanic, although not so much recently immigrated.

Regressions

Column

Regression Model Results

Effect of Community Change on Housing Price Change
Dependent variable:
HousePriceChange
(1) (2) (3)
FreignBornChange -0.167*** -0.159** -0.087
(0.046) (0.067) (0.061)
RecentImmigrantChange 0.032 0.019
(0.037) (0.033)
PoorEnglishChange -0.001 -0.007
(0.020) (0.018)
VeteranChange -0.076 0.044
(0.109) (0.097)
PovertyChange -0.041** -0.091*** -0.033
(0.020) (0.030) (0.028)
PovertyBlackChange -0.006 -0.0001
(0.013) (0.011)
PovertyWhiteChange 0.073*** 0.029
(0.026) (0.024)
PovertyHispanicChange 0.004 -0.002
(0.013) (0.012)
PopBlackChange -0.012 -0.002 0.014
(0.031) (0.039) (0.035)
PopUnempChange -0.048* -0.018
(0.026) (0.024)
PopManufactChange -0.076
(0.095)
PopSelfEmpChange 0.201***
(0.058)
PopProfChange 0.791***
(0.092)
FemaleLaborForceChange -0.602***
(0.190)
PopHispanicChange -0.180*** -0.099
(0.068) (0.061)
Constant 2.087*** 2.196*** 1.572***
(0.078) (0.125) (0.221)
Observations 341 341 341
R2 0.088 0.132 0.343
Adjusted R2 0.077 0.105 0.313
Residual Std. Error 0.579 (df = 336) 0.570 (df = 330) 0.499 (df = 325)
F Statistic 8.095*** (df = 4; 336) 5.007*** (df = 10; 330) 11.336*** (df = 15; 325)
Note: p<0.1; p<0.05; p<0.01

Column

Regression Model Findings

There are not that many variables that have a significant correlation with the change house price, but there are a few.

With fewer variables, foreign born, change in poverty and change in Hispanic population have a significant negative correlation with house price (change in white poverty had a significant positive correlation), although not with more variables. With a larger number of variables, population of self-employed and professional individuals had a significant positive correlation with house price, while female workforce had a negative correlation.

Clustering

Identifying Communities


Neighborhood Clustering Determination

Clusters were determined by taking the 2010 Census data by using the ‘mclust()’ command to split the areas up into 4 significant groups based on trends in the independent variables (grouping into 4 groups while minimizing the amount of variation between observations). You can find a table of the raw statistics in the table to left. These stats were then turned into visual interpretations, for easier comparison- you will find these graphs on the tabs to follow.

Cluster 1


Labeling Group 1

Label: Predominately Hispanic community in earlier stage of gentrification

Description: Group 1 is predominately Hispanic with a moderate degree of poverty and immigrant community members. It also has a large number of females in the workforce and community members with professional employment.

Cluster 2


Labeling Group 2

Label: Predominately Hispanic community with high degrees of poverty, immigrant populations and female workforce.

Description: Group 2 is also predominately Hispanic with a high degree of poverty and immigrant community members. It also has a large number of females in the workforce. Unlike Group 1, immigrant and impoverished communities far outweigh the professionals.

Cluster 3


Labeling Group 3

Label: Diverse community in later stage of gentrification

Description: Group 3 is a diverse community in the later stages of gentrification, with a very large professional and female workforce. It also has moderate veteran and self-employed populations, and a low degree of poverty.

Cluster 4


Labeling Group 4

Label: Diverse professional community with little poverty and unemployment

Description: Group 4 is a diverse community with a high degree of professional workforce and (although lower) female workforce. The area has a moderate foreign born population and manufacturing workforce, with low levels of unemployment and poverty.

.


  |                                                                            
  |                                                                      |   0%
  |                                                                            
  |=                                                                     |   1%
  |                                                                            
  |=                                                                     |   2%
  |                                                                            
  |==                                                                    |   3%
  |                                                                            
  |===                                                                   |   4%
  |                                                                            
  |====                                                                  |   5%
  |                                                                            
  |====                                                                  |   6%
  |                                                                            
  |=====                                                                 |   7%
  |                                                                            
  |=====                                                                 |   8%
  |                                                                            
  |======                                                                |   8%
  |                                                                            
  |======                                                                |   9%
  |                                                                            
  |=======                                                               |   9%
  |                                                                            
  |=======                                                               |  10%
  |                                                                            
  |=======                                                               |  11%
  |                                                                            
  |========                                                              |  11%
  |                                                                            
  |========                                                              |  12%
  |                                                                            
  |=========                                                             |  12%
  |                                                                            
  |=========                                                             |  13%
  |                                                                            
  |==========                                                            |  14%
  |                                                                            
  |==========                                                            |  15%
  |                                                                            
  |===========                                                           |  15%
  |                                                                            
  |===========                                                           |  16%
  |                                                                            
  |============                                                          |  16%
  |                                                                            
  |============                                                          |  17%
  |                                                                            
  |============                                                          |  18%
  |                                                                            
  |=============                                                         |  18%
  |                                                                            
  |=============                                                         |  19%
  |                                                                            
  |==============                                                        |  20%
  |                                                                            
  |==============                                                        |  21%
  |                                                                            
  |===============                                                       |  21%
  |                                                                            
  |===============                                                       |  22%
  |                                                                            
  |================                                                      |  22%
  |                                                                            
  |================                                                      |  23%
  |                                                                            
  |=================                                                     |  24%
  |                                                                            
  |=================                                                     |  25%
  |                                                                            
  |==================                                                    |  25%
  |                                                                            
  |==================                                                    |  26%
  |                                                                            
  |===================                                                   |  27%
  |                                                                            
  |===================                                                   |  28%
  |                                                                            
  |====================                                                  |  28%
  |                                                                            
  |====================                                                  |  29%
  |                                                                            
  |=====================                                                 |  30%
  |                                                                            
  |=====================                                                 |  31%
  |                                                                            
  |======================                                                |  31%
  |                                                                            
  |======================                                                |  32%
  |                                                                            
  |=======================                                               |  32%
  |                                                                            
  |=======================                                               |  33%
  |                                                                            
  |========================                                              |  34%
  |                                                                            
  |========================                                              |  35%
  |                                                                            
  |=========================                                             |  35%
  |                                                                            
  |=========================                                             |  36%
  |                                                                            
  |==========================                                            |  36%
  |                                                                            
  |==========================                                            |  37%
  |                                                                            
  |==========================                                            |  38%
  |                                                                            
  |===========================                                           |  38%
  |                                                                            
  |===========================                                           |  39%
  |                                                                            
  |============================                                          |  39%
  |                                                                            
  |============================                                          |  40%
  |                                                                            
  |============================                                          |  41%
  |                                                                            
  |=============================                                         |  41%
  |                                                                            
  |=============================                                         |  42%
  |                                                                            
  |==============================                                        |  42%
  |                                                                            
  |==============================                                        |  43%
  |                                                                            
  |===============================                                       |  44%
  |                                                                            
  |===============================                                       |  45%
  |                                                                            
  |================================                                      |  45%
  |                                                                            
  |================================                                      |  46%
  |                                                                            
  |=================================                                     |  47%
  |                                                                            
  |=================================                                     |  48%
  |                                                                            
  |==================================                                    |  48%
  |                                                                            
  |==================================                                    |  49%
  |                                                                            
  |===================================                                   |  50%
  |                                                                            
  |===================================                                   |  51%
  |                                                                            
  |====================================                                  |  51%
  |                                                                            
  |====================================                                  |  52%
  |                                                                            
  |=====================================                                 |  52%
  |                                                                            
  |=====================================                                 |  53%
  |                                                                            
  |======================================                                |  54%
  |                                                                            
  |======================================                                |  55%
  |                                                                            
  |=======================================                               |  55%
  |                                                                            
  |=======================================                               |  56%
  |                                                                            
  |========================================                              |  57%
  |                                                                            
  |========================================                              |  58%
  |                                                                            
  |=========================================                             |  58%
  |                                                                            
  |=========================================                             |  59%
  |                                                                            
  |==========================================                            |  59%
  |                                                                            
  |==========================================                            |  60%
  |                                                                            
  |===========================================                           |  61%
  |                                                                            
  |===========================================                           |  62%
  |                                                                            
  |============================================                          |  62%
  |                                                                            
  |============================================                          |  63%
  |                                                                            
  |=============================================                         |  64%
  |                                                                            
  |=============================================                         |  65%
  |                                                                            
  |==============================================                        |  65%
  |                                                                            
  |==============================================                        |  66%
  |                                                                            
  |===============================================                       |  67%
  |                                                                            
  |===============================================                       |  68%
  |                                                                            
  |================================================                      |  68%
  |                                                                            
  |================================================                      |  69%
  |                                                                            
  |=================================================                     |  70%
  |                                                                            
  |==================================================                    |  71%
  |                                                                            
  |==================================================                    |  72%
  |                                                                            
  |===================================================                   |  73%
  |                                                                            
  |====================================================                  |  74%
  |                                                                            
  |====================================================                  |  75%
  |                                                                            
  |=====================================================                 |  75%
  |                                                                            
  |=====================================================                 |  76%
  |                                                                            
  |======================================================                |  77%
  |                                                                            
  |======================================================                |  78%
  |                                                                            
  |=======================================================               |  78%
  |                                                                            
  |=======================================================               |  79%
  |                                                                            
  |========================================================              |  79%
  |                                                                            
  |========================================================              |  80%
  |                                                                            
  |========================================================              |  81%
  |                                                                            
  |=========================================================             |  81%
  |                                                                            
  |=========================================================             |  82%
  |                                                                            
  |==========================================================            |  82%
  |                                                                            
  |==========================================================            |  83%
  |                                                                            
  |===========================================================           |  84%
  |                                                                            
  |===========================================================           |  85%
  |                                                                            
  |============================================================          |  85%
  |                                                                            
  |============================================================          |  86%
  |                                                                            
  |=============================================================         |  87%
  |                                                                            
  |=============================================================         |  88%
  |                                                                            
  |==============================================================        |  88%
  |                                                                            
  |==============================================================        |  89%
  |                                                                            
  |===============================================================       |  90%
  |                                                                            
  |================================================================      |  91%
  |                                                                            
  |================================================================      |  92%
  |                                                                            
  |=================================================================     |  92%
  |                                                                            
  |=================================================================     |  93%
  |                                                                            
  |=================================================================     |  94%
  |                                                                            
  |==================================================================    |  94%
  |                                                                            
  |==================================================================    |  95%
  |                                                                            
  |===================================================================   |  95%
  |                                                                            
  |===================================================================   |  96%
  |                                                                            
  |====================================================================  |  97%
  |                                                                            
  |====================================================================  |  98%
  |                                                                            
  |===================================================================== |  98%
  |                                                                            
  |===================================================================== |  99%
  |                                                                            
  |======================================================================|  99%
  |                                                                            
  |======================================================================| 100%
[1] "SpatialPolygonsDataFrame"
attr(,"package")
[1] "sp"

Neighborhoods

Column

Mapping Clusters

$tm_layout
$tm_layout$legend.position
[1] "left"   "bottom"

$tm_layout$legend.frame
[1] TRUE

$tm_layout$legend.bg.color
[1] "lightblue"

$tm_layout$style
[1] NA


attr(,"class")
[1] "tm"

Column

Mapping Neighborhood Clusters

Cluster Group 1: Predominately Hispanic community in earlier stage of gentrification

Cluster Group 2: Predominately Hispanic community with high degrees of poverty, immigrant populations and female workforce.

Cluster Group 3: Diverse community in later stage of gentrification

Cluster Group 4: Diverse professional community with little poverty and unemployment

Description: In looking at the map we can see that much of Austin proper is in transition, with I-35 a significant role in the separation of “neighborhoods” (cluster types) . West Austin is seems to be where the communities in the later stages of gentrification seem to be concentrated. This makes sense since this is where a lot of the Austin attractions and events are located (i.e. south congress, ACL, SXSW, etc.). East Austin is where the dive bars, food trucks, and young professionals typically find their place due to affordability, with closer proximity to the attractions of the City. As we move further out, we can see that the areas of higher poverty and immigrant populations in the southwest. On the outskirts of Austin proper. On the Northeast side of Austin, we can find the areas with low levels of poverty and a large professional population. These are also in close proximity to golf courses, nicer homes with large plots, and Lake Travis where a lot of boating occurs.

Neighborhood Change

Creating Transition Matrix

   
             1          2          3          4
  1 0.68686869 0.25252525 0.06060606 0.00000000
  2 0.18421053 0.81578947 0.00000000 0.00000000
  3 0.21374046 0.03053435 0.69465649 0.06106870
  4 0.32876712 0.05479452 0.23287671 0.38356164

Predicting the past (2000), using information from 2010

Cluster Group 1: Predominately Hispanic community in earlier stage of gentrification

I expected that group 1 would have been part of the same group (areas in beginning stages of gentrification), or Group 2 (areas of high poverty).

Cluster Group 2: Predominately Hispanic community with high degrees of poverty, immigrant populations and female workforce.

I expected that group 2 would have been part of the same group (areas of high poverty), or Group 1(areas in beginning stages of gentrification).

Cluster Group 3: Diverse community in later stage of gentrification

I expected that group 3 would have been part of the same group (areas in later stages of gentrification), or Group 1 (areas in beginning stages of gentrification).

Cluster Group 4: Diverse professional community with little poverty and unemployment

I expected that group 4 would have been part of the same group (areas with low poverty and large professional workforce), or Group 3 (areas in later stages of gentrification) or Group 1 (areas in beginning stages of gentrification).

Acutal 2000 Distributions: In all cases, the transitions between clusters were as expected, with minor discrepancies (6% or less). Group 1 was made up of 69% Group 1, 25% Group 2 and 6% Group 3. Group 2 was made up of 82% Group 2, and 18% Group 1. Group 3 was made up of 69% Group 3, 33% Group 1 and 6% Group 4 and 3% Group 2. Group 4 was made up of 38% Group 4, 33% Group 1, 23% Group 3 and 5% Group 2.

Neighborhood Transitions


Transitions Visualized:

The adjacent Sankey transition plot is a visual representation of the matrix that we just discussed. As we can see, Group 1 was predominately made up of itself or Group 2. Group 2 predominately was made up of itself. Group 3 was predominately made up of itself or Group 1. And Group 4 was predominately made up of itself, Group 1 or Group 3. What I didn’t expect to see were areas that digressed, although this might be due to the Great recession of 2008. I also didn’t expect to see so much of group 2 (high poverty transition to group 3 or 4. Although, I could definitely see how cheap real estate could encourage that transition. There are definitely signs of gentrification, as we see significant proportions of each cluster transition over time.

About

About the Developer


Introducing Ricky Duran

Ricky Duran (Not pictured to the left) is a Master of Public Policy Student (class of 2021) in in the Arizona State University School of Public Affairs. He has an interest in data sciences as they relate to public service, and hopes to find a position where he can use data to inform decision making processes and policy.

Currently Ricky is working with an initiative in ASU Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, Opportunities for Youth, where is the Marketing and Data Specialist. In this initiative he works with over 80 partner organizations to bring resources and opportunities to opportunity youth (Youth 16-24 who are not in school and/or not working) to help them find their “Pathway to a Brighter Future”.

When he is not working or going to school, Ricky enjoys the hiking, gardening and the outdoors in general. He also enjoys working with local non-profits to help them become better aware of how their programs are preforming, to help them find ways to increase efficiency.

Ricky Duran

602-206-6337

Documentation


Data Collection and Oranizing

library( tidycensus ) allows us pull cencus data from a shared Census Data Bank.

census_api_key(“your key here”) using a personal key, we can access and pull data through tidycensus. If you do not yet have a Cencus AIP Key, you can request on at aip.census.gov.

library( plyr ) allows us to format our data so that it better fits into our analyses.

Data Tables

library( DT ) allows us to make data tables, as in this project.

Data Graphing

library( ggplot2 ) allows us to create more impressive graphs, such as the cluster plots.

Data Mapping

library( cartogram ) allows is to create spatial maps w/ tract size bias reduction from shapfiles.

library( maptools ) allows us to manipulate spatial object, to better represent our data.

library( tmap ) allows us to create more customised maps, as seen in the map of our cluster data.

library( tidyverse ) tidyverse allows us to use multiple packages (that play well together) to create more customize development.

Data Analysis

library( stargazer ) allows us to more effectively share our analyses in a formatted presentation, such as with our regression table.

library( corrplot ) allows us to present data in matirces.

library( purrr ) allows us to better work with functions and vectors.

library( mclust ) allows us to develop and analyze cluster groups from a dataset.

Data Presentation

library( flexdashboard ) allows us to place our content in an appliction format like this one.

library( leaflet ) allows us to display inteactive maps, as in this project.

---
title: "Demographic Change in Austin Metro Area"
output: 
  flexdashboard::flex_dashboard:
    social: menu
    source: embed
---

```{r setup, include=FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(  message=F, warning=F, echo=F )

devtools::install_github("gadenbuie/lorem")

#Load in libraries
library( tidyverse )
library( plyr )         # data wrangling
library( stargazer )
library( corrplot )
library( purrr )
library( flexdashboard )
library( leaflet )
library( DT )
library( lorem )
library( geojsonio )   # read shapefiles
library( sp )          # work with shapefiles
library( sf )          # work with shapefiles - simple features format
library( mclust )      # cluster analysis 
library( tmap )        # theme maps
library( ggplot2 )     # graphing 
library( ggthemes )    # nice formats for ggplots
library( pander )      # formatting RMD tables
library( tidycensus )

library( cartogram )  # spatial maps w/ tract size bias reduction
library( maptools )   # spatial object manipulation 
```

```{r, quietly=T, include=F}

census_api_key("42bf5fcc6e6a6f05ebe97a0e647a5216a708613a")

#Loading data 
URL <- "https://github.com/DS4PS/cpp-529-master/raw/master/data/CensusData.rds"
census.dats <- readRDS(gzcon(url( URL )))
census.dats <- na.omit(census.dats)


```






Introduction {.storyboard}
=========================================

### Project Overview

```{r}
leaflet() %>%
  addTiles() %>%
  addMarkers(lng=-97.7405, lat=30.2746, popup="Texas Capital, Austin, TX")
```


***

**Introduction to Neighborhood Change in Austin, Texas.**

I have visited Austin, Texas many times and really enjoy it as a visitor. Each time I go though, a few new buildings have popped up, a couple more eateries have gone away, and those hidden free parking areas are either now metered or permit parking. It goes further than that though. Area which were traditionally depended on by artists and low income families are becoming gentrified and no longer affordable for those who lived there.

Furthermore, those areas of Austin remind me a lot of areas around the Phoenix Metro Area, which I call home. We are beginning to see a lot of rapid growth here, with similar changes in the areas around Downtown Phoenix and Arizona State University (Tempe, AZ). This brings me to my analysis of neighborhood changes in Austin, TX.

In this analysis we will be examining Census data to compare neighborhood trends between 2000 and 2010. We will do this through visually examining the data, regressions, neighborhood clustering, mapping these trends and examining change over time.


Data {.storyboard}
=========================================


### Data Dictionary 

```{r, results='asis',fig.align='center', echo=F}
#Edit ME: At this point, census.dats contains census information for all of the US.  
#Edit ME (Cont.): You want to focus on only your chosen MSA selected in Lab 4.
#Edit ME (Cont.): Subset census.dats to include only your MSA of interest. 
#Edit ME (Cont.): After you subset the data to your MSA of interest, change echo=T to echo=F so that we do not see your code, which is not required for professional city government presentation.

# Link to Lab 4: https://ds4ps.org/cpp-529-master/labs/lab-04-instructions.html

austin.data <- filter(census.dats, 
     state == "TX", 
     county %in% c("Bastrop County", "Caldwell County", "Hays County" ,"Travis County" ,"Williamson County"))


data.dictionary <- 
structure(list(LABEL = c("TRTID10","state","county","Median.HH.Value00","Foreign.Born00","Recent.Immigrant00","Poor.English00","Veteran00","Poverty00","Poverty.Black00","Poverty.White00","Poverty.Hispanic00","Pop.Black00","Pop.Hispanic00","Pop.Unemp00","Pop.Manufact00","Pop.SelfEmp00","Pop.Prof00","Female.LaborForce00","Median.HH.Value10","Foreign.Born10","Recent.Immigrant10","Poor.English10","Veteran10","Poverty10","Poverty.Black10","Poverty.White10","Poverty.Hispanic10","Pop.Black10","Pop.Hispanic10","Pop.Unemp10","Pop.Manufact10","Pop.SelfEmp10","Pop.Prof10","Female.LaborForce10"), VARIABLE = c("GEOID","State examined(Texas)","Counties examined (Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, Williamson)","Median home value (2000)","Percent foreign born (2000)","Percent recently immigrated (2000)","Percent poor English proficiency(2000)","Percent veteran (2000)","Percent in poverty, total (2000)","Percent in poverty, Black (2000)","Percent in poverty, White (2000)","Percent in poverty, Hispanic (2000)","Percent black, non-Hispanic (2000)","Percent Hispanic (2000)","Percent unemployed (2000)","Percent manufacturing employees (2000)","Percent self-employed (2000)","Percent professional employees (2000)","Percent female labor force participation (2000)","Median home value (2010)","Percent foreign born (2010)","Percent recently immigrated (2010)","Percent poor English proficiency(2010)","Percent veteran (2010)","Percent in poverty, total (2010)","Percent in poverty, Black (2010)","Percent in poverty, White (2010)","Percent in poverty, Hispanic (2010)","Percent black, non-Hispanic (2010)","Percent Hispanic (2010)","Percent unemployed (2010)","Percent manufacturing employees (2010)","Percent self-employed (2010)","Percent professional employees (2010)","Percent female labor force participation (2010)")), class = "data.frame", title= "DATA DICTIONARY",row.names = c(NA, 
-35L))

data.dictionary %>% pander()

```


```{r, echo=F}
#Calculating change Values for variables 

censusChange1 <- ddply(austin.data,"TRTID10",summarise, 
       HousePriceChange = Median.HH.Value10/(Median.HH.Value00+1),# Change variable
       FreignBornChange = Foreign.Born10/(Foreign.Born00 +.01),
       RecentImmigrantChange = Recent.Immigrant10/(Recent.Immigrant00+.01),
       PoorEnglishChange = Poor.English10/(Poor.English00+.01),
       VeteranChange = Veteran10/(Veteran00+.01),
       PovertyChange = Poverty10/(Poverty00+.01),
       PovertyBlackChange = Poverty.Black10/(Poverty.Black00+.01),
       PovertyWhiteChange = Poverty.White10/(Poverty.White00+.01),
       PovertyHispanicChange = Poverty.Hispanic10/(Poverty.Hispanic00+.01),
       PopBlackChange = Pop.Black10/(Pop.Black00+.01),
       PopHispanicChange = Pop.Hispanic10/(Pop.Hispanic00+.01),
       PopUnempChange = Pop.Unemp10/(Pop.Unemp00+.01),
       PopManufactChange = Pop.Manufact10/(Pop.Manufact00+.01),
       PopSelfEmpChange = Pop.SelfEmp10/(Pop.SelfEmp00+.01),
       PopProfChange = Pop.Prof10/(Pop.Prof00+.01),
       FemaleLaborForceChange = Female.LaborForce10/(Female.LaborForce00+.01)
)

#remove NAs that result 
censusChange1<-censusChange1[!duplicated(censusChange1$TRTID10),]
```


***

**Introducing the Data**

We are using a dataset that consist of 2000 and 2010 Census tract data, and combining it with shape files for the Austin Metropolitan Area to create spatial representations of these communities. By examining changes in median home value as a dependent variable of the demographic data listed in the data dictionary to the left, we are able to see how changes in these variables can correlate with change in home value. The independent variables that we will be using are Racial and Ethnic makeup, presence of poverty, occupation and immigrant traits.

**Data Source**

The Census data used was made available through the [Diversity and Disparities Project]( https://s4.ad.brown.edu/projects/diversity/Researcher/Bridging.htm). They have created a dataset with 170 variables that have been harmonized from 1970 onward for analysis of changes in tracts over time. 



### View Data 

```{r}
DT::datatable( head(censusChange1, 25) )
```


***

**Changes in Variables**

**Temporal Change in Variables**

To determine temporal change in variables, we examined 2010 data as a factor of 2000 data, to see how each variable preformed over the 10 year period.

Over the first few tracts we can see that median home values increase over those 10 years. Poverty and unemployment also increased in most areas.Populations of Black community members seemed to decrease while Hispanic membership increased. As far employment is concerned, most types of employment seemed to see a decrease in workforce, while female labor force saw an increase across all areas. 


### 5-point summary  

```{r, results='asis',message=F, warning=F, fig.width = 9,fig.align='center', echo=F }
#Visualize 5-point summary
censusChange1 %>%
    keep(is.numeric) %>% 
stargazer(
          omit.summary.stat = c("p25", "p75"), nobs=F, type="html") # For a pdf document, replace html with latex
```


***

**Summary of Temporal Change**

When we look at the 5-point we see a more definitive picture of the trends for all of the Austin Metropolitan Area we were seeing in the separate areas.

We are still seeing an increase in most median home values, although not all. We do see an increase in immigrant traits for most areas, although some did see no immigration at all. Poverty and unemployment did see still see an increased in most areas. Populations of Black community members did decrease across in Austin, while Hispanic membership increased. Employment decreased in manufacturing by almost half, while there was a subtle increase in professionals and self-employed individuals. Finally, the increase in female labor force is much more subtle, when examining it at the metropolitan area level. 


### Histogram 

```{r,message=F, warning=F, echo=F}
#Histogram
censusChange1 %>%
  keep(is.numeric) %>% 
  gather() %>% 
  ggplot(aes(value)) +
    facet_wrap(~ key, scales = "free") +
    geom_histogram()
```


***

**Visual Representations of Temporal Change**

For most histograms we are able to see a smaller and more abrupt distribution on the lower side of the bel curve than the higher. This tells us that most of the variation in these variables are above the average for each- The median values are most likely higher than the means.

The median home value increased by about 1.25 in most areas, although increases of 1.5 to 2 times 2000 prices were not all that rare. The number of manufacturing workers, veterans, and Black populations all saw a pretty similar decrease, being replaced predominately by unemployment and a female workforce, but we also see a pretty wide distribution in the increase of self-employed individuals.



### Correlation Plot 

```{r, message=F, warning=F, echo=F}
##save correlations in train_cor
train_cor <- cor(censusChange1[,-1])

##Correlation Plot
corrplot(train_cor, type='lower')

```


***

**Correlations in Variable Change**

Correlations for the Austin Metro Area are pretty subtle in most cases, with the strongest correlations being positive.

Some of the strongest are the expected, with there being a strong correlation between recent immigration, being foreign born and poor English proficiency. We were able to see that the highest contributor to an increase in poverty was an increase in the poverty of white individuals, with Hispanics being second. We did see a pretty strong correlation between house values and the increase in professional workforce. Finally, we are able to see that a large number of foreign born community members are Hispanic, although not so much recently immigrated. 




Regressions 
=========================================

Column {data-width=600}
-------------------------------------

### Regression Model Results 

```{r, results='asis', fig.height = 10,fig.align='center', echo=F}

library(latexpdf)

reg1<-lm(HousePriceChange ~  FreignBornChange + PovertyChange + PopBlackChange + PopUnempChange 
            , data=censusChange1)

reg2<-lm(HousePriceChange ~  FreignBornChange + RecentImmigrantChange + PoorEnglishChange  + VeteranChange + PovertyChange + PovertyBlackChange + PovertyWhiteChange + PovertyHispanicChange + PopBlackChange + PopHispanicChange  , data=censusChange1)

reg3<-lm(HousePriceChange ~  FreignBornChange + RecentImmigrantChange + PoorEnglishChange  + VeteranChange + PovertyChange + PovertyBlackChange + PovertyWhiteChange + PovertyHispanicChange + PopBlackChange + PopHispanicChange +
PopHispanicChange + PopUnempChange +  PopManufactChange +  PopSelfEmpChange + PopProfChange + FemaleLaborForceChange   , data=censusChange1)

# present results with stargazer
# library(stargazer)
stargazer( reg1, reg2, reg3, 
           title="Effect of Community Change on Housing Price Change",
           type="html", align=TRUE )

```

Column {data-width=400}
-------------------------------------

### Regression Model Findings

There are not that many variables that have a significant correlation with the change house price, but there are a few. 

With fewer variables, foreign born, change in poverty and change in Hispanic population have a significant negative correlation with house price (change in white poverty had a significant positive correlation), although not with more variables. With a larger number of variables, population of self-employed and professional individuals had a significant positive correlation with house price, while female workforce had a negative correlation.



Clustering {.storyboard}
=========================================

### Identifying Communities

```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}
# Cluster analysis for 2010 Data
# library(mclust)

Census2010<-austin.data
keep.these1 <-c("Foreign.Born10","Recent.Immigrant10","Poor.English10","Veteran10","Poverty10","Poverty.Black10","Poverty.White10","Poverty.Hispanic10","Pop.Black10","Pop.Hispanic10","Pop.Unemp10","Pop.Manufact10","Pop.SelfEmp10","Pop.Prof10","Female.LaborForce10")

#Run Cluster Analysis
mod2 <- Mclust(Census2010[keep.these1],G=4) # Set groups to 5, but you can remove this to let r split data into own groupings

#summary(mod2, parameters = TRUE)

#Add group classification to df
Census2010$cluster <- mod2$classification
```


```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}

#Visualize Data
stats1 <- 
  Census2010 %>% 
  group_by( cluster ) %>% 
  select(keep.these1)%>% 
  summarise_each( funs(mean) )

t <- data.frame( t(stats1), stringsAsFactors=F )
names(t) <- paste0( "GROUP.", 1:4 )
t <- t[-1,]

DT::datatable( head(t, 35) )
```


***

**Neighborhood Clustering Determination**

Clusters were determined by taking the 2010 Census data by using the ‘mclust()’ command to split the areas up into 4 significant groups based on trends in the independent variables (grouping into 4 groups while minimizing the amount of variation between observations). You can find a table of the raw statistics in the table to left. These stats were then turned into visual interpretations, for easier comparison- you will find these graphs on the tabs to follow. 


### Cluster 1

```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}

plot( rep(1,15), 1:15, bty="n", xlim=c(-.2,1), 
      type="n", xaxt="n", yaxt="n",
      xlab="Proportion of Population", ylab="Independent Variables",
      main=paste("Group",1) )
abline( v=seq(0,1,.1), lty=3, lwd=2, col="gray90" )
segments( y0=1:15, x0=0, x1=100, col="gray70", lwd=2 )
text( 0, 1:15, keep.these1, cex=0.55, pos=2 )
points( t[,1], 1:15, pch=19, col="Steelblue", cex=1.5 )
axis( side=1, at=c(0,.25,.5,.75,1), col.axis="gray", col="gray" )

```


***

**Labeling Group 1**

**Label:**  Predominately Hispanic community in earlier stage of gentrification 

**Description:** Group 1 is predominately Hispanic with a moderate degree of poverty and immigrant community members. It also has a large number of females in the workforce and community members with professional employment. 




### Cluster 2

```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}

plot( rep(1,15), 1:15, bty="n", xlim=c(-.2,1), 
      type="n", xaxt="n", yaxt="n",
      xlab="Proportion of Population", ylab="Independent Variables",
      main=paste("Group",2) )
abline( v=seq(0,1,.1), lty=3, lwd=2, col="gray90" )
segments( y0=1:15, x0=0, x1=100, col="gray70", lwd=2 )
text( 0, 1:15, keep.these1, cex=0.55, pos=2 )
points( t[,2], 1:15, pch=19, col="Steelblue", cex=1.5 )
axis( side=1, at=c(0,.25,.5,.75,1), col.axis="gray", col="gray" )

```


***

**Labeling Group 2**

**Label:**  Predominately Hispanic community with high degrees of poverty, immigrant populations and female workforce.

**Description:** Group 2 is also predominately Hispanic with a high degree of poverty and immigrant community members. It also has a large number of females in the workforce. Unlike Group 1, immigrant and impoverished communities far outweigh the professionals.




### Cluster 3 

```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}

plot( rep(1,15), 1:15, bty="n", xlim=c(-.2,1), 
      type="n", xaxt="n", yaxt="n",
      xlab="Proportion of Population", ylab="Independent Variables",
      main=paste("Group",3) )
abline( v=seq(0,1,.1), lty=3, lwd=2, col="gray90" )
segments( y0=1:15, x0=0, x1=100, col="gray70", lwd=2 )
text( 0, 1:15, keep.these1, cex=0.55, pos=2 )
points( t[,3], 1:15, pch=19, col="Steelblue", cex=1.5 )
axis( side=1, at=c(0,.25,.5,.75,1), col.axis="gray", col="gray" )

```


***

**Labeling Group 3**

**Label:**  Diverse community in later stage of gentrification

**Description:** Group 3 is a diverse community in the later stages of gentrification, with a very large professional and female workforce. It also has moderate veteran and self-employed populations, and a low degree of poverty.




### Cluster 4 

```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}

plot( rep(1,15), 1:15, bty="n", xlim=c(-.2,1), 
      type="n", xaxt="n", yaxt="n",
      xlab="Proportion of Population", ylab="Independent Variables",
      main=paste("Group",4) )
abline( v=seq(0,1,.1), lty=3, lwd=2, col="gray90" )
segments( y0=1:15, x0=0, x1=100, col="gray70", lwd=2 )
text( 0, 1:15, keep.these1, cex=0.55, pos=2 )
points( t[,4], 1:15, pch=19, col="Steelblue", cex=1.5 )
axis( side=1, at=c(0,.25,.5,.75,1), col.axis="gray", col="gray" )

```


***

**Labeling Group 4**

**Label:**  Diverse professional community with little poverty and unemployment

**Description:** Group 4 is a diverse community with a high degree of professional workforce and (although  lower) female workforce. The area has a moderate foreign born population and manufacturing workforce, with low levels of unemployment and poverty. 



### .

```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}
crosswalk <- read.csv( "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DS4PS/cpp-529-master/master/data/cbsatocountycrosswalk.csv",  stringsAsFactors=F, colClasses="character" )

these.msp <- crosswalk$msaname == "AUSTIN-SAN MARCOS, TX"
these.fips <- crosswalk$fipscounty[ these.msp ]
these.fips <- na.omit( these.fips )

state.fips <- substr( these.fips, 1, 2 )
county.fips <- substr( these.fips, 3, 5 )

census_api_key("42bf5fcc6e6a6f05ebe97a0e647a5216a708613a")

aus.pop <-
get_acs( state = "48", county = county.fips[state.fips=="48"], geography = "tract", variables = "B19013_001", geometry = TRUE ) %>% 
         select( GEOID, estimate )

aus <- merge( aus.pop, Census2010, by.x="GEOID", by.y="TRTID10" )

aus.sp <- as_Spatial( aus )

class( aus.sp )
```


Neighborhoods
=========================================

Column {data-width=800}
-------------------------------------

### Mapping Clusters

```{r, echo=F, fig.width=10, fig.height=8}

aus.sp <- spTransform( aus.sp, CRS("+init=epsg:3395"))
aus.sp <- aus.sp[ aus.sp$estimate != 0 & (! is.na( aus.sp$estimate )) , ]

# convert census tract polygons to dorling cartogram
# no idea why k=0.03 works, but it does - default is k=5
aus.sp$pop.w <- aus.sp$estimate / 9000 # max(msp.sp$POP)   # standardizes it to max of 1.5
aus_dorling <- cartogram_dorling( x=aus.sp, weight="pop.w", k=0.05 )

tmap_mode("view")
tm_basemap(leaflet::providers$Stamen.Watercolor) +
  tm_shape( aus_dorling, bbox = "Austin")+ 
  tm_polygons( size="estimate", col="cluster", n=4, style="cat", palette="Spectral" )+
  tm_layout( "Austin, TX", title.position=c("left","top") )
tm_legend(position = c("left", "bottom"), 
	frame = TRUE,
	bg.color="lightblue")
```

Column {data-width=200}
-------------------------------------

**Mapping Neighborhood Clusters**

**Cluster Group 1:** Predominately Hispanic community in earlier stage of gentrification  

**Cluster Group 2:** Predominately Hispanic community with high degrees of poverty, immigrant populations and female workforce.

**Cluster Group 3:** Diverse community in later stage of gentrification

**Cluster Group 4:** Diverse professional community with little poverty and unemployment

**Description:** In looking at the map we can see that much of Austin proper is in transition, with I-35 a significant role in the separation of “neighborhoods” (cluster types) . West Austin is seems to be where the communities in the later stages of gentrification seem to be concentrated. This makes sense since this is where a lot of the Austin attractions and events are located (i.e. south congress, ACL, SXSW, etc.). East Austin is where the dive bars, food trucks, and young professionals typically find their place due to affordability, with closer proximity to the attractions of the City. As we move further out, we can see that the areas of higher poverty and immigrant populations in the southwest. On the outskirts of Austin proper. On the Northeast side of Austin, we can find the areas with low levels of poverty and a large professional population. These are also in close proximity to golf courses, nicer homes with large plots, and Lake Travis where a lot of boating occurs.  


```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}
#Predicting cluster Grouping for 2000 census tracts

# Get 2000 data
Census2000 <-census.dats


keep.these00 <-c("Foreign.Born00","Recent.Immigrant00","Poor.English00","Veteran00","Poverty00","Poverty.Black00","Poverty.White00","Poverty.Hispanic00","Pop.Black00","Pop.Hispanic00","Pop.Unemp00","Pop.Manufact00","Pop.SelfEmp00","Pop.Prof00","Female.LaborForce00")

pred00<-predict(mod2, Census2000[keep.these00])

Census2000$PredCluster <- pred00$classification

TransDF2000<-Census2000 %>%
  select(TRTID10, PredCluster)

TransDF2010<-Census2010 %>%
  select(TRTID10, cluster,Median.HH.Value10) 

TransDFnew<-merge(TransDF2000,TransDF2010,by.all="TRTID10",all.x=TRUE)
```




Neighborhood Change {.storyboard}
=========================================


### Creating Transition Matrix

```{r ,message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}

#Transition Matrix
prop.table( table( TransDFnew$PredCluster, TransDFnew$cluster ) , margin=1 )
    
```


***

**Predicting the past (2000), using information from 2010**

**Cluster Group 1:** Predominately Hispanic community in earlier stage of gentrification  

I expected that group 1 would have been part of the same group (areas in beginning stages of gentrification), or Group 2 (areas of high poverty).

**Cluster Group 2:** Predominately Hispanic community with high degrees of poverty, immigrant populations and female workforce.

I expected that group 2 would have been part of the same group (areas of high poverty), or Group 1(areas in beginning stages of gentrification). 

**Cluster Group 3:** Diverse community in later stage of gentrification

I expected that group 3 would have been part of the same group (areas in later stages of gentrification), or Group 1 (areas in beginning stages of gentrification). 

**Cluster Group 4:** Diverse professional community with little poverty and unemployment

I expected that group 4 would have been part of the same group (areas with low poverty and large professional workforce), or Group 3 (areas in later stages of gentrification) or Group 1 (areas in beginning stages of gentrification).

**Acutal 2000 Distributions:** In all cases, the transitions between clusters were as expected, with minor discrepancies (6% or less). Group 1 was made up of 69% Group 1, 25% Group 2 and 6% Group 3. Group 2 was made up of 82% Group 2, and 18% Group 1. Group 3 was made up of 69% Group 3, 33% Group 1 and 6% Group 4 and  3% Group 2. Group 4 was made up of 38% Group 4, 33% Group 1, 23% Group 3 and 5% Group 2.





### Neighborhood Transitions

```{r, message=F, warning=F, echo=F, fig.align='center'}

# Sankey Transition Plot
trn_mtrx1 <-
  with(TransDFnew,
       table(PredCluster, 
             cluster))

library(Gmisc)
transitionPlot(trn_mtrx1,
               main="Austin Cluster Transiitions Visualications \n 2010 to 2000",
           box_label=c("Cluster Groups, 2010",
                       "Cluster Groups, 2000"),
               type_of_arrow = "gradient",
           cex=1)
```


***

**Transitions Visualized:**

The adjacent Sankey transition plot is a visual representation of the matrix that we just discussed. As we can see, Group 1 was predominately made up of itself or Group 2. Group 2 predominately was made up of itself. Group 3 was predominately made up of itself or Group 1. And Group 4 was predominately made up of itself, Group 1 or Group 3. What I didn’t expect to see were areas that digressed, although this might be due to the Great recession of 2008. I also didn’t expect to see so much of group 2 (high poverty transition to group 3 or 4. Although, I could definitely see how cheap real estate could encourage that transition. There are definitely signs of gentrification, as we see significant proportions of each cluster transition over time.




About {.storyboard}
=========================================





### About the Developer 


![](http://moviecultists.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Will+Ferrell-150x150.jpg)

***

**Introducing Ricky Duran**

Ricky Duran (Not pictured to the left) is a Master of Public Policy Student (class of 2021) in in the Arizona State University School of Public Affairs. He has an interest in data sciences as they relate to public service, and hopes to find a position where he can use data to inform decision making processes and policy.

Currently Ricky is working with an initiative in ASU Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, Opportunities for Youth, where is the Marketing and Data Specialist. In this initiative he works with over 80 partner organizations to bring resources and opportunities to opportunity youth (Youth 16-24 who are not in school and/or not working) to help them find their “Pathway to a Brighter Future”.

When he is not working or going to school, Ricky enjoys the hiking, gardening and the outdoors in general. He also enjoys working with local non-profits to help them become better aware of how their programs are preforming, to help them find ways to increase efficiency.

**Ricky Duran**

**602-206-6337**

**ricky.duran@asu.edu**




### Documentation {data-commentary-width=400}

```{r, eval=F, echo=T}
# R libraries used for this project, with descriptions (right).
library( tidycensus )
# using `census_api_key(“your key here”)`
library( plyr )
library( DT )
library( ggplot2 )
library( cartogram )
library( maptools )
library( tmap )
library( tidyverse )
library( stargazer )
library( corrplot )
library( purrr )
library( mclust )
library( flexdashboard )
library( leaflet )
```


***
**Data Collection and Oranizing**

  `library( tidycensus )` allows us pull cencus data from a shared Census Data Bank. 

 `census_api_key(“your key here”)` using a personal key, we can access and pull data through tidycensus. If you do not yet have a Cencus AIP Key, you can request on at [aip.census.gov](aip.census.gov).

  `library( plyr )` allows us to format our data so that it better fits into our analyses.

**Data Tables**

  `library( DT )` allows us to make data tables, as in this project.

**Data Graphing**

`library( ggplot2 )` allows us to create more impressive graphs, such as the cluster plots. 

**Data Mapping**

  `library( cartogram )` allows is to create spatial maps w/ tract size bias reduction from shapfiles.

  `library( maptools )` allows us to manipulate spatial object, to better represent our data.

  `library( tmap )` allows us to create more customised maps, as seen in the map of our cluster data.

`library( tidyverse )` tidyverse allows us to use multiple packages (that play well together) to create more customize development.

**Data Analysis**

`library( stargazer )` allows us to more effectively share our analyses in a formatted presentation, such as with our regression table.

`library( corrplot )` allows us to present data in matirces. 

`library( purrr )` allows us to better work with functions and vectors.

`library( mclust )` allows us to develop and analyze cluster groups from a dataset.

**Data Presentation**

  `library( flexdashboard )` allows us to place our content in an appliction format like this one.
  
  `library( leaflet )` allows us to display inteactive maps, as in this project.