Visual Property Nuisances

The Visual Property Nuisances indicator measures the proportion of properties that are deteriorated, dilapidated and overgrown in a neighborhood. This includes properties in which either minor repairs are needed, the structural integrity has been compromised, and there are signs of littering and unmaintained vegetation. Deteriorated, dilapidated and overgrown properties create budgetary challenges to municipalities and other government entities, as these properties reduce tax revenues that are used to support important government services. Studies show that residents report that vacant overgrown land impacts “physical health through injury, the buildup of trash, and attraction of rodents, as well as mental health through anxiety and stigma.” Furthermore, there is a relationship between deteriorated and dilapidated properties and poor health outcomes, including sexually transmitted infections, specifically gonorrhea, pre-mature mortality, diabetes, and suicides, and fire-related injuries. This indicator is important to measure neighborhood conditions, specifically blight. Data for the Visual Property Nuisances indicator comes from the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham and the City of Birmingham Property Conditions Assessment.

Neighborhoodsort descending Indicator Value Rank
Acipco-Finley 23.5% 75
Airport Highlands 13.0% 44
Apple Valley 6.9% 27
Arlington - West End 24.8% 78
Belview Heights 7.9% 30
Bridlewood 2.2% 13
Brown Springs 26.8% 84
Brownsville Heights 12.6% 43
Brummitt Heights 3.5% 19
Bush Hills 10.8% 39
Central City 11.1% 40
Central Park 24.9% 79
Central Pratt 28.7% 89
College Hills 18.0% 61
Collegeville 25.7% 82
Crestline 1.8% 9
Crestwood North 11.2% 41
Crestwood South 3.0% 18
Dolomite 15.9% 56
Druid Hills 18.3% 63
East Avondale 17.0% 58
East Birmingham 42.5% 99
East Brownville 27.5% 85
East Lake 15.4% 55
East Thomas 14.9% 53
Eastwood 6.4% 24
Echo Highlands 1.7% 8
Enon Ridge 20.6% 70
Ensley 28.8% 90
Ensley Highlands 16.8% 57
Evergreen 19.4% 65
Fairmont 21.5% 71
Fairview 25.0% 80
Five Points South 4.9% 21
Forest Park 1.6% 7
Fountain Heights 29.8% 92
Garden Highlands 6.8% 26
Gate City 37.4% 98
Germania Park 9.8% 36
Glen Iris 2.5% 15
Grasselli Heights 20.2% 69
Graymont 9.7% 35
Green Acres 2.3% 14
Harriman Park 17.2% 59
Highland Park 1.8% 9
Hillman 28.1% 87
Hillman Park 18.8% 64
Hooper City 22.4% 72
Huffman 2.0% 11
Industrial Center 13.6% 50
Inglenook 22.5% 73
Jones Valley 19.6% 67
Killough Springs 2.8% 16
Kingston 33.7% 95
Liberty Highlands 5.1% 22
Maple Grove 9.0% 34
Mason City 14.1% 51
North Avondale 13.0% 44
North Birmingham 29.1% 91
North East Lake 19.5% 66
North Pratt 17.6% 60
North Titusville 31.3% 94
Norwood 20.1% 68
Oak Ridge 8.6% 33
Oak Ridge Park 28.1% 87
Oakwood Place 27.8% 86
Overton 1.4% 5
Oxmoor 0.5% 1
Penfield Park 9.9% 37
Pine Knoll Vista 6.6% 25
Powderly 13.5% 49
Redmont Park 0.8% 3
Riley 26.3% 83
Rising - West Princeton 7.9% 30
Roebuck 7.2% 28
Roebuck Springs 2.1% 12
Roosevelt 22.9% 74
Sandusky 10.1% 38
Sherman Heights 13.3% 47
Smithfield 25.3% 81
Smithfield Estates 2.8% 16
South East Lake 12.1% 42
South Pratt 8.5% 32
South Titusville 14.7% 52
South Woodlawn 31.1% 93
Southside 5.6% 23
Spring Lake 1.3% 4
Sun Valley 0.7% 2
Tarpley City 18.2% 62
Thomas 15.2% 54
Tuxedo 13.3% 47
Wahouma 36.7% 96
West Brownville 23.9% 77
West End Manor 7.3% 29
West Goldwire 1.4% 5
Woodland Park 13.2% 46
Woodlawn 37.3% 97
Wylam 23.5% 75
Zion City 4.5% 20

Key Citations:
1. Garvin, Eugenia, Charles Branas, Shimrit Keddem, Jeffrey Sellman, and Carolyn Cannuscio. 2013. “More than Just an Eyesore: Local Insights and Solutions on Vacant Land and Urban Health.” Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 90(3):412–26.
2. Cohen, Deborah A. et al. 2003. “Neighborhood Physical Conditions and Health.” American journal of public health 93(3):467–71.
3. Shai, Donna. 2006. “Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis.” Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) 121(2):149–54.