The purpose of these methodologies is to document the specific data and technical processes used to develop and produce outcomes for the Equitable Growth Framework as it was applied to the Community Area Plans (CAPs), the Charlotte Future 2040 Policy Map, and for the topical assessments within each CAP:
- Mobility assessment
- Open space assessment
- Environmental justice assessment & urban heat mapping
- Community character placemaking assessment
While this web-version provides some high-level information, the full PDF should be consulted for a more complete and technical understanding.
Equitable Growth Framework
The Equitable Growth Framework (EGF) methodology outlines how the EGF metric scores were determined for each of the Community Area Plans (CAPs), which were used to identify the greatest challenges and needs for each CAP geography and to identify priority goals from the Comprehensive Plan. This methodology builds on the original development of the EGF that was part of the Charlotte Future 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The EGF includes four key metrics, each of which includes a series of several separate datapoints:
- Access to essential amenities, goods, and services
- Access to housing opportunities
- Access to employment opportunities
- Environmental Justice
These metrics are then considered alongside the Vulnerability to Displacement Overlay, which assesses a series socioeconomic metrics, including:
- Poverty rate
- Educational attainment
- Race
- Age
Together, these elements were spatially analyzed across the city using ½ mile by ½ mile grid cells – each one receiving a specific score for each metric. While these results were originally used to understand variability across the entire city, the concept was advanced through the CAP process. Each CAP geography was aligned with multiple EGF grid cells through a “closest fit” approach. The individual scores for each of these cells was then aggregated to produce overall EGF scores for each CAP geography.
For each CAP geography, priority EGF metrics were identified if they had a low score (4 or lower, out of 8 total), with priority ranking for each based on relative scores if more than one metric scored within the high-priority range (4 or lower).
| Access to Amenities | Access to Employment | Access to Housing | Environmental Justice | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| East Inner | 6 | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| East Middle & Outer | 4 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| North Inner | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| North Middle & Outer | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 |
| Northeast Inner | 5 | 7 | 4 | 5 |
| Northeast Middle & Outer | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| South Inner | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 |
| South Middle | 4 | 4 | 2 | 7 |
| South Outer | 4 | 4 | 1 | 6 |
| Southwest Middle | 3 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| Southwest Outer | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Uptown | 8 | 8 | 2 | 2 |
| West Inner | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| West Middle | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| West Outer | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
Mobility Assessment
The mobility assessment methodology outlines the specific approach, data, and processes used to conduct this topical assessment of existing conditions (and implied needs) for each CAP geography.
The mobility assessment involved spatial data and the use of Esri ArcGIS software. The approach included both qualitative and quantitative assessment of existing conditions for areas within each CAP geography designated as a mixed-use Place Type (i.e. Neighborhood Center, Community Activity Center, Regional Activity Center, and Innovation Mixed- Use) since these areas are anticipated to accommodate most growth within Charlotte and to experience the most change over time. This assessment was conducted across five physical environment factors related to mobility infrastructure:
- Pedestrian Network
- Bike Network
- Crossings
- Block Length & Street Network
- Parking
For each of these factors, the aspirational condition was defined based on the relevant Place Type descriptions (see Mobility section in the CAP plans for aspirational conditions). Then, current conditions were evaluated against specified benchmarks and scored with one of the following:
- Aligned
- Somewhat Aligned
- Not Aligned
Areas that scored as “Not Aligned” or “Somewhat Aligned” indicate a more pressing need for further investment.
Open Space Assessment
The open space assessment methodology outlines the specific approach, data, and processes used to conduct this topical assessment of existing conditions (and implied needs) for each CAP geography.
The open space assessment involved spatial data and the use of Esri ArcGIS software. The approach included both qualitative and quantitative assessment of existing conditions for areas within each CAP geography designated as a mixed-use Place Type (i.e. Neighborhood Center, Community Activity Center, Regional Activity Center, and Innovation Mixed- Use) since these areas are anticipated to accommodate most growth within Charlotte and to experience the most change over time. This assessment was conducted across three physical environment factors related to parks and open space, with one factor including two distinct components:
- Accessibility
- Diversity
- Parks & Greenways Diversity
- Plazas & Courtyards Diversity*
- Tree Canopy
*this assessment was used for both open space and community character placemaking topics
For each of these factors, the aspirational condition was defined based on the relevant Place Type descriptions (see Open Space section in the CAP plans for aspirational conditions). Then, current conditions were evaluated against specified benchmarks and scored with one of the following:
- Aligned
- Somewhat Aligned
- Not Aligned
Areas that scored as “Not Aligned” or “Somewhat Aligned” indicate a more pressing need for further investment.
Environmental Justice Assessment
The Environmental Justice assessment methodology outlines the specific approach, data, and processes used to conduct this topical assessment of existing conditions (and implied needs) for each CAP geography.
The Environmental Justice assessment built from the Environmental Justice Equitable Growth Framework (EGF) metric, involving spatial analysis of five key elements within ½ mile by ½ mile grid cells:
- Tree canopy coverage
- Impervious surface coverage
- Proximity to heavy industrial activity
- Proximity to major transportation infrastructure
- Flood risk
The aggregated score for all grid cells that align with each CAP geography resulted in a total score for each of these elements. Each score was then translated into a relative level of risk and need, with lower scores indicating high risk or poorer conditions and higher scores indicating lower risk or better conditions (except for tree canopy where low scores indicate greater tree canopy coverage).
Urban Heat Methodology
The urban heat map, which was used in the CAP Environmental Justice and Sustainability Assessment, represents Land Surface Temperature (LST) data for each CAP geography, helping to identify extreme urban heat conditions that can increase community health risks. The LST data was calculated as an average from satellite Google Earth Engine data in June, July, and August between 2022 and 2024.
Community Character Placemaking Assessment
The placemaking assessment methodology outlines the specific approach, data, and processes used to conduct this topical assessment of existing conditions (and implied needs) for each CAP geography.
The placemaking assessment involved spatial data and the use of Esri ArcGIS software. The approach included both qualitative and quantitative assessment of existing conditions for areas within each CAP geography designated as a mixed-use Place Type (i.e. Neighborhood Center, Community Activity Center, Regional Activity Center, and Innovation Mixed- Use) since these areas are anticipated to accommodate most growth within Charlotte and to experience the most change over time. This assessment was conducted across seven physical environment factors related to community character and placemaking:
- Signage
- Public Art
- Amenities & Furnishings
- Branding
- Public Spaces
- Public Play Areas
- Property Ownership Patterns
For each of these factors, the aspirational condition was defined based on the relevant Place Type descriptions (see Community Character section in the CAP plans for aspirational conditions). Then, current conditions were evaluated against specified benchmarks and scored with one of the following:
- Aligned
- Somewhat Aligned
- Not Aligned
Areas that scored as “Not Aligned” or “Somewhat Aligned” indicate a more pressing need for further investment.