With our project now completed we are now able to examine the factors that contributed to our outcome and how they may have misrepresented the real-world. These factors will be broken down in to topics.
The data taken from the Vancouver Police Department was divided into neighborhoods. Where the boundaries were drawn as well as the size of the neighborhood divisions has an affect on what is percieved as the real world truth. Activities like crime or car accidents may actually take place in much smaller and distinct areas within the neighborhood but due to the divisions that are drawn the entire area is given the same attribute. To use this project as an example, the Central Business District may have a high number of car accidents but in reality those accidents take place close to the border between the Central Business District and the Mount Pleasant neighborhood. This gives a false representation of the two neighborhoods.
Factor 1 has a minimal to moderate affect on the outcome of the project.
In our outcome there was no dimension of time included. With differing times comes differing temperatures, periods of light and darkness, weather conditions and amounts of pedestrians. Not very many locals are out at parks during the night or during rainy conditions. Traffic is usually dead during the late hours of the night as well. While police data was compiled over several months, trends may change as construction throughout the city is conducted thereby affecting traffic and the possibility of accidents. The Canada-Line rapid transit line from Vancouver to Richmond being a large influence in traffic in the city.
Factor 2 has a moderate affect on the outcome of the project.
Factor 3: Assumptions Made While the discussion in general is about generalizations and assumptions this factor is more specific to the factors we have chosen. In this project we have made several assumptions: We have assumed that all parks have large trees that shed leaves on to roads and have a high amount of children and other local residents in the area. We have assumed that there are more pedestrians around bus routes and skytrain stations and as a result, made an assumption that they will have an affect on traffic several hundred metres around those areas. These assumptions, while not completely false, make large generalizations.
Factor 3 has minimal affect on the outcome of the project.
Factor 4: Timeliness of Data Majority of data were dated 2001 - 2002. This means that our outcome assumes that nothing has changed in 4-5 years. However we know that this is false, especially with regards to public transit. Much has changed in the city since 2001/2002. This includes new skytrain stations, bus stops, bus routes, etc. Some streets may have changed as well.
Factor 4 has a minimal to moderate affect on the outcome of the project.
Factor 5: Confounding FactorsAs mentioned in a previous section, the automobile accident numbers is a major confounding factor. Our study assumes that the factors included in the analysis produce more traffic (with the exception of thefts) making it more undesireable to drive. Automobile accidents and traffic are two factors which have a dialectical relationship. Car accidents cause traffic but traffic also causes car accidents. It is hard to separate the two but unfair to combine them together. So the includsion of a layer for automobile accidents may just re-emphasize the presence of the other factors.
Factor 5 has a moderate to high affect on the outcome of the project.
While all these factors add up to having a moderate impact on the outcome of the project, myself having a general familiarity with the driving conditions of the city of Vancouver, know that the outcome provides an adequate reflection of the real world- as generalized as it may be. In the end the project accomplished it's objective which was to give a visual representation of the least desireable areas to drive or park a car in Vancouver.
Return to Top of Page
