Inference and foundations
Filter results by
Search HelpKeyword(s)
Type
Survey or statistical program
Results
All (4)
All (4) ((4 results))
- 1. Defining and Measuring Metropolitan Areas: A Comparison Between Canada and the United States ArchivedArticles and reports: 92F0138M2008002Description:
On November 26 2006, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) held an international workshop on defining and measuring metropolitan regions. The reasons the OECD organized this workshop are listed below.
1. Metropolitan Regions have become a crucial economic actor in today's highly integrated world. Not only do they play their traditional role of growth poles in their countries but they function as essential nodes of the global economy.2. Policy makers, international organisations and research networks are increasingly called to compare the economic and social performances of Metropolitan Regions across countries. Examples of this work undertaken in international organisation and networks include the UN-Habitat, the EU Urban Audit, ESPON and the OECD Competitive Cities.3. The scope of what we can learn from these international comparisons, however, is limited by the lack of a comparable definition of Metropolitan Regions. Although most countries have their own definitions, these vary significantly from one country to another. Furthermore, in search for higher cross-country comparability, international initiatives have - somehow paradoxically - generated an even larger number of definitions.4. In principle, there is no clear reason to prefer one definition to another. As each definition has been elaborated for a specific analytical purpose, it captures some features of a Metropolitan Region while it tends to overlook others. The issue, rather, is that we do not know the pros and the cons of different definitions nor, most important, the analytical implications of using one definition rather than another. 5. In order to respond to these questions, the OECD hosted an international workshop on 'Defining and Measuring Metropolitan Regions'. The workshop brought together major international organisations (the UN, Eurostat, the World Bank, and the OECD), National Statistical Offices and researchers from this field. The aim of the workshop was to develop some 'guiding principles', which could be agreed upon among the participants and would eventually provide the basis for some form of 'International Guidance' for comparing Metropolitan Regions across countries.
This working paper was presented at this workshop. It provides the conceptual and methodological basis for the definition of metropolitan areas in Canada and provides a detailed comparison of Canada's methodology to that of the USA. The intent was to encourage discussion regarding Canada's approach to defining metropolitan areas in the effort to identify the 'guiding principles'. It is being made available as a working paper to continue this discussion and to provide background to the user community to encourage dialogue and commentary from the user community regarding Canada's metropolitan area methodology.
Release date: 2008-02-20 - Articles and reports: 92F0138M2003001Description:
The goal of this working paper is to assess how well Canada's current method of delineating Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and Census Agglomerations (CAs) reflects the metropolitan nature of these geographic areas according to the facilities and services they provide. The effectiveness of Canada's delineation methodology can be evaluated by applying a functional model to Statistics Canada's CMAs and CAs.
As a consequence of the research undertaken for this working paper, Statistics Canada has proposed lowering the urban core population threshold it uses to define CMAs: a CA will be promoted to a CMA if it has a total population of at least 100,000, of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core. User consultation on this proposal took place in the fall of 2002 as part of the 2006 Census content determination process.
Release date: 2003-03-31 - Articles and reports: 92F0138M2000003Description:
Statistics Canada's interest in a common delineation of the north for statistical analysis purposes evolved from research to devise a classification to further differentiate the largely rural and remote areas that make up 96% of Canada's land area. That research led to the establishment of the census metropolitan area and census agglomeration influenced zone (MIZ) concept. When applied to census subdivisions, the MIZ categories did not work as well in northern areas as in the south. Therefore, the Geography Division set out to determine a north-south divide that would differentiate the north from the south independent of any standard geographic area boundaries.
This working paper describes the methodology used to define a continuous line across Canada to separate the north from the south, as well as lines marking transition zones on both sides of the north-south line. It also describes the indicators selected to derive the north-south line and makes comparisons to alternative definitions of the north. The resulting classification of the north complements the MIZ classification. Together, census metropolitan areas, census agglomerations, MIZ and the North form a new Statistical Area Classification (SAC) for Canada.
Two related Geography working papers (catalogue no. 92F0138MPE) provide further details about the MIZ classification. Working paper no. 2000-1 (92F0138MPE00001) briefly describes MIZ and includes tables of selected socio-economic characteristics from the 1991 Census tabulated by the MIZ categories, and working paper no. 2000-2 (92F0138MPE00002) describes the methodology used to define the MIZ classification.
Release date: 2000-02-03 - Geographic files and documentation: 92F0138M1993001Geography: CanadaDescription:
The Geography Divisions of Statistics Canada and the U.S. Bureau of the Census have commenced a cooperative research program in order to foster an improved and expanded perspective on geographic areas and their relevance. One of the major objectives is to determine a common geographic area to form a geostatistical basis for cross-border research, analysis and mapping.
This report, which represents the first stage of the research, provides a list of comparable pairs of Canadian and U.S. standard geographic areas based on current definitions. Statistics Canada and the U.S. Bureau of the Census have two basic types of standard geographic entities: legislative/administrative areas (called "legal" entities in the U.S.) and statistical areas.
The preliminary pairing of geographic areas are based on face-value definitions only. The definitions are based on the June 4, 1991 Census of Population and Housing for Canada and the April 1, 1990 Census of Population and Housing for the U.S.A. The important aspect is the overall conceptual comparability, not the precise numerical thresholds used for delineating the areas.
Data users should use this report as a general guide to compare the census geographic areas of Canada and the United States, and should be aware that differences in settlement patterns and population levels preclude a precise one-to-one relationship between conceptually similar areas. The geographic areas compared in this report provide a framework for further empirical research and analysis.
Release date: 1999-03-05
Data (0)
Data (0) (0 results)
No content available at this time.
Analysis (3)
Analysis (3) ((3 results))
- 1. Defining and Measuring Metropolitan Areas: A Comparison Between Canada and the United States ArchivedArticles and reports: 92F0138M2008002Description:
On November 26 2006, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) held an international workshop on defining and measuring metropolitan regions. The reasons the OECD organized this workshop are listed below.
1. Metropolitan Regions have become a crucial economic actor in today's highly integrated world. Not only do they play their traditional role of growth poles in their countries but they function as essential nodes of the global economy.2. Policy makers, international organisations and research networks are increasingly called to compare the economic and social performances of Metropolitan Regions across countries. Examples of this work undertaken in international organisation and networks include the UN-Habitat, the EU Urban Audit, ESPON and the OECD Competitive Cities.3. The scope of what we can learn from these international comparisons, however, is limited by the lack of a comparable definition of Metropolitan Regions. Although most countries have their own definitions, these vary significantly from one country to another. Furthermore, in search for higher cross-country comparability, international initiatives have - somehow paradoxically - generated an even larger number of definitions.4. In principle, there is no clear reason to prefer one definition to another. As each definition has been elaborated for a specific analytical purpose, it captures some features of a Metropolitan Region while it tends to overlook others. The issue, rather, is that we do not know the pros and the cons of different definitions nor, most important, the analytical implications of using one definition rather than another. 5. In order to respond to these questions, the OECD hosted an international workshop on 'Defining and Measuring Metropolitan Regions'. The workshop brought together major international organisations (the UN, Eurostat, the World Bank, and the OECD), National Statistical Offices and researchers from this field. The aim of the workshop was to develop some 'guiding principles', which could be agreed upon among the participants and would eventually provide the basis for some form of 'International Guidance' for comparing Metropolitan Regions across countries.
This working paper was presented at this workshop. It provides the conceptual and methodological basis for the definition of metropolitan areas in Canada and provides a detailed comparison of Canada's methodology to that of the USA. The intent was to encourage discussion regarding Canada's approach to defining metropolitan areas in the effort to identify the 'guiding principles'. It is being made available as a working paper to continue this discussion and to provide background to the user community to encourage dialogue and commentary from the user community regarding Canada's metropolitan area methodology.
Release date: 2008-02-20 - Articles and reports: 92F0138M2003001Description:
The goal of this working paper is to assess how well Canada's current method of delineating Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and Census Agglomerations (CAs) reflects the metropolitan nature of these geographic areas according to the facilities and services they provide. The effectiveness of Canada's delineation methodology can be evaluated by applying a functional model to Statistics Canada's CMAs and CAs.
As a consequence of the research undertaken for this working paper, Statistics Canada has proposed lowering the urban core population threshold it uses to define CMAs: a CA will be promoted to a CMA if it has a total population of at least 100,000, of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core. User consultation on this proposal took place in the fall of 2002 as part of the 2006 Census content determination process.
Release date: 2003-03-31 - Articles and reports: 92F0138M2000003Description:
Statistics Canada's interest in a common delineation of the north for statistical analysis purposes evolved from research to devise a classification to further differentiate the largely rural and remote areas that make up 96% of Canada's land area. That research led to the establishment of the census metropolitan area and census agglomeration influenced zone (MIZ) concept. When applied to census subdivisions, the MIZ categories did not work as well in northern areas as in the south. Therefore, the Geography Division set out to determine a north-south divide that would differentiate the north from the south independent of any standard geographic area boundaries.
This working paper describes the methodology used to define a continuous line across Canada to separate the north from the south, as well as lines marking transition zones on both sides of the north-south line. It also describes the indicators selected to derive the north-south line and makes comparisons to alternative definitions of the north. The resulting classification of the north complements the MIZ classification. Together, census metropolitan areas, census agglomerations, MIZ and the North form a new Statistical Area Classification (SAC) for Canada.
Two related Geography working papers (catalogue no. 92F0138MPE) provide further details about the MIZ classification. Working paper no. 2000-1 (92F0138MPE00001) briefly describes MIZ and includes tables of selected socio-economic characteristics from the 1991 Census tabulated by the MIZ categories, and working paper no. 2000-2 (92F0138MPE00002) describes the methodology used to define the MIZ classification.
Release date: 2000-02-03
Reference (1)
Reference (1) ((1 result))
- Geographic files and documentation: 92F0138M1993001Geography: CanadaDescription:
The Geography Divisions of Statistics Canada and the U.S. Bureau of the Census have commenced a cooperative research program in order to foster an improved and expanded perspective on geographic areas and their relevance. One of the major objectives is to determine a common geographic area to form a geostatistical basis for cross-border research, analysis and mapping.
This report, which represents the first stage of the research, provides a list of comparable pairs of Canadian and U.S. standard geographic areas based on current definitions. Statistics Canada and the U.S. Bureau of the Census have two basic types of standard geographic entities: legislative/administrative areas (called "legal" entities in the U.S.) and statistical areas.
The preliminary pairing of geographic areas are based on face-value definitions only. The definitions are based on the June 4, 1991 Census of Population and Housing for Canada and the April 1, 1990 Census of Population and Housing for the U.S.A. The important aspect is the overall conceptual comparability, not the precise numerical thresholds used for delineating the areas.
Data users should use this report as a general guide to compare the census geographic areas of Canada and the United States, and should be aware that differences in settlement patterns and population levels preclude a precise one-to-one relationship between conceptually similar areas. The geographic areas compared in this report provide a framework for further empirical research and analysis.
Release date: 1999-03-05
- Date modified: