The cost-distance analysis yielded a cost-surface for each criteria. General spatial trends show that there are especially high concentrations of these features in the downtown core of Hamilton, as shown by Figures 4-10 in the links below. Each criteria is divided into its corresponding factor type.
The final MCE identified the most suitable sites were within one large cluster in downtown Hamilton (Figure 3). These sites had the highest proximity to the most factors compared to all other possible sites. Many vacant land sites in the downtown core had high accessibility to the community infrastructure and food sources, health and safety services, and educational services that were used as criteria factors in this model. This result is precisely what was predicted before MCE analysis took place. Downtown cores of big cities like Hamilton are indicative of high population densities, and therefore it could be predicted that there would be increased accessibility to local amenities that every homeowner/renter needs (White, 2012). This is was caused by the relative abundance of amenities that were recognized as factors. Figure 11 below shows the ten most suitable locations in Hamilton, with these sites being the highest scoring due to their proximity to criteria factors. However the MCE identified a top ten suitability land parcel which has geometry not conducive to the building of an apartment building.
Figure 11: Top ten most suitable sites within the City of Hamilton for low income housing
The location of all the criteria features surrounding the ten highest scoring vacant land sites is shown below in Figure 12. This shows the highest density of criteria features located in close proximity to vacant land sites in this portion of the downtown core. Figure 13 shows land parcels located in the downtown region that also have high suitability but were not among the top ten sites. Comparing the relative locations of amenities with regards to each land parcel will lead to a greater understanding on the importance of the factor weights and spatial distribution of each factor layer. Though both clusters of vacant parcels were located downtown, the top ten parcels were surrounded by a broader distribution of amenities. For example, Figure 13 shows many sites which are close to schools and recreation centers, the highest weighted factors. However, these were the only amenities within very close proximity. The top ten land parcels show broad distributions of all amenities and as a result, was weighted higher. This shows that the proximity to high weighted factors are important, but not as important as having access to a large number of various amenity types.
Figure 12: The location of all criteria features surrounding the ten highest-scoring vacant land sites located in downtown Hamilton.
Figure 13: The location of all criteria features surrounding a subset of moderately high-scoring vacant land sites in downtown Hamilton.