While Nantucket is most known for its wealthy, summertime vacation crowd, the island’s history is rooted in a small community of year-round, working-class families. The principle challenge of this mapping exercise was to discover, within geospatial data, an index of the perceived divide between the two demographic groups.

While no data set can perfectly describe the social trends I was interested in studying, I found a suitable proxy in pairing parcel data with information made public through the Tax Assessors office. While most local, year-round laborers use their homes as primary residences, the wealthier, seasonal homeowners use their properties only during the summer months, maintaining an off-island residence to which their tax assessments are mailed.By sorting parcel information according to whether taxes on a given property were mailed to the property directly or to an off-island address, I discovered a useful, though limited, proxy for identifying properties owned by the two demographics. The primary map identifies all residential properties on Nantucket and codes them red or green, depending on whether their tax information is mailed locally or off-island. While this broad generalization is not without significant qualifications, the data points to a distinct and fascinating disparity between the two groups.

To begin with, parcels identified as “off-island” were 41% larger on average, and had an average assessed property value of 113 $/sf, compared to the “on-island” average of 67 $/sf. Beyond that, GIS-software made it possible to discover some surprising geospatial differences between the two groups. While the “off-island” set made up 57.9% of the total residential parcels on the island, they occupied over 80% of the parcels adjacent to the seashore, considered prime real estate. In contrast, “on-island” parcels were statistically more likely to be within 100 meters of public transportation, an island-wide shuttle system. No statistical difference was found between the two classes when analyzed for adjacency to conservation land, which covers over 60% of the island.
Although empirical data can rarely express nuanced, social divisions with accuracy or clarity, the geospatial image of the island created in these maps indicates the presence of a measurable divide between two groups of property owners on Nantucket.



While Nantucket is most known for its wealthy, summertime vacation crowd, the island’s history is rooted in a small community of year-round, working-class families. The principle challenge of this mapping exercise was to discover, within geospatial data, an index of the perceived divide between the two demographic groups.

While no data set can perfectly describe the social trends I was interested in studying, I found a suitable proxy in pairing parcel data with information made public through the Tax Assessors office. While most local, year-round laborers use their homes as primary residences, the wealthier, seasonal homeowners use their properties only during the summer months, maintaining an off-island residence to which their tax assessments are mailed.By sorting parcel information according to whether taxes on a given property were mailed to the property directly or to an off-island address, I discovered a useful, though limited, proxy for identifying properties owned by the two demographics. The primary map identifies all residential properties on Nantucket and codes them red or green, depending on whether their tax information is mailed locally or off-island. While this broad generalization is not without significant qualifications, the data points to a distinct and fascinating disparity between the two groups.

To begin with, parcels identified as “off-island” were 41% larger on average, and had an average assessed property value of 113 $/sf, compared to the “on-island” average of 67 $/sf. Beyond that, GIS-software made it possible to discover some surprising geospatial differences between the two groups. While the “off-island” set made up 57.9% of the total residential parcels on the island, they occupied over 80% of the parcels adjacent to the seashore, considered prime real estate. In contrast, “on-island” parcels were statistically more likely to be within 100 meters of public transportation, an island-wide shuttle system. No statistical difference was found between the two classes when analyzed for adjacency to conservation land, which covers over 60% of the island.
Although empirical data can rarely express nuanced, social divisions with accuracy or clarity, the geospatial image of the island created in these maps indicates the presence of a measurable divide between two groups of property owners on Nantucket.