Data table for Chart 2.10
| CMA | 1971 natural and semi-natural land as a percentage of total area | 2011 natural and semi-natural land as a percentage of total area |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
| Newer CMAs | ||
| Guelph | 46 | 38 |
| Abbotsford–Mission | 90 | 85 |
| Trois-Rivières | 52 | 53 |
| Brantford | 38 | 33 |
| Barrie | 63 | 56 |
| Peterborough | 77 | 73 |
| Moncton | 96 | 93 |
| Kelowna | 98 | 96 |
| Sherbrooke | 79 | 78 |
| Kingston | 78 | 78 |
| Mid-size and small CMAs | ||
| St. John's | 96 | 87 |
| Saguenay | 95 | 93 |
| Thunder Bay | 98 | 96 |
| Regina | 19 | 23 |
| Victoria | 92 | 86 |
| Oshawa | 56 | 50 |
| Saint John | 97 | 94 |
| Windsor | 19 | 13 |
| Greater Sudbury | 99 | 98 |
| Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo | 38 | 29 |
| Saskatoon | 28 | 31 |
| Ottawa–Gatineau (Que.) | 86 | 85 |
| St. Catharines–Niagara | 45 | 35 |
| London | 28 | 19 |
| Hamilton | 45 | 36 |
| Halifax | 98 | 95 |
| Québec | 83 | 79 |
| Winnipeg | 41 | 41 |
| Large CMAs | ||
| Ottawa–Gatineau (Ont.) | 54 | 52 |
| Calgary | 48 | 42 |
| Vancouver | 85 | 76 |
| Edmonton | 45 | 43 |
| Montréal | 50 | 39 |
| Toronto | 52 | 46 |
|
Notes: Natural and semi-natural land is the residual area remaining after subtracting built-up and arable land from the total area. Because it was calculated residually, the class also includes some homes and other buildings, particularly those located on large lots and in rural areas, since these may not be captured by satellite imagery as built-up, due in part to the resolution of the data, but also overlying tree canopy. CMA-E are not spatially mutually exclusive—they overlap where a Soil Landscape of Canada (SLC) polygon crosses more than one CMA boundary, as in the case of Vancouver and Abbotsford–Mission or Toronto and surrounding CMAs including Hamilton, Oshawa, Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo, Guelph, Brantford and Barrie. Caution should be used when comparing data. See CMA-E maps in Section 3: Ecosystem accounts and statistics by census metropolitan area for a visual representation of the CMA-E boundaries. CMA-Es are ordered here according to their respective CMA built-up area. CMAs were classified as large, mid-size or small based on the 2011 built-up area using geometric intervals. Newer CMAs—those not populated enough to qualify as CMAs in 1971—were then grouped separately. Sources: Statistics Canada, Environment, Energy and Transportation Statistics Division, 2016,special tabulation of data from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS), 1999, Canada Land Inventory: CLI Land Use (circa 1966), ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geott/cli_250k/landuse/ (accessed September 15, 2015); NRCan, CCRS, 1999, Canada Land Use Monitoring Program (CLUMP): CLUMP Land Use (1971), ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geott/clump/clump_1971/ (accessed September 15, 2015); Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), 2015, Land Use 1990, 2000 and 2010, http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/18e3ef1a-497c-40c6-8326-aac1a34a0dec (accessed September 16, 2015); AAFC, 2013, AAFC Crop Inventory, 2011, http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/58ca7629-4f6d-465a-88eb-ad7fd3a847e3 (accessed August 10, 2015); NRCan, Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation, 2014, CanVec+, ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/canvec+/shp/ (accessed August 10, 2015). |
||
- Date modified: