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.

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

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.