Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Regional analysis in the United States is limited by the alphabetic FIPS codes which were assigned in the 1960’s. The base codes assigned alphabetically for states, then alphabetically for counties and comparable geographies within states, made it simple to lookup individual state or county data in a list. Some regional aggregation was done in the establishment of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), which were separately coded. Many of these regions matched the geography of early Metropolitan Councils of Government. The relationship definitions which defined such MSAs by workforce commuting, led to their widening over time to more jurisdictions, as well as necessitating combinations of MSAs for market analysis. Since the geographic base changed over time, there was little opportunity for long term analysis of change on standard geography. Totals used obscured differences within the underlying territory. There was no comparable national system to aggregate non-metropolitan counties into standard regions, although most states established some form of multi-county regional councils. Some, like Virginia, used sub-state districts for data aggregation and use by other State agencies, allowing the region number to act like a FIPS code. In the 1990’s, commerce, industry and even workforce commuting expanded along Interstate and Primary routes, showing connections between MSAs and a broad range of non-metropolitan counties, often in adjoining states. To understand these relationships, there was clear need for multi-regional analysis, but no data sets supported this. The author began work in 1998 to promote the development of such a system, submitting a comment to the U.S. Census Bureau February 12, 1999 relative to: Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas. Continued work on the issue and a review of other national and international systems led to the conclusion that a global geo-code system was needed, since existing formats had tended to be based on an alphabetic approach. Given the multiplicity of regional alignments, multi-national, multi-state, a global geo-code system appeared appropriate. The purpose of this paper is to present the prototype design for the purpose of further consideration by the user communities. The system is based on a geocode scheme set up for earth that focuses on established political boundaries as a basis for regional grouping of nations, states and localities. It is decimal system based to take advantage of the sort criteria for numbers in computers. It utilized the Sector Group and Region codes of the United Nations and ISO.
Citation preview
Global Region-builder Geo-Code Prototype©
by Thomas J. Christoffel, AICP, MeRSARegional Intelligence – Regional Communities, LLC
57th Annual North American meetings of the Regional Science Association International
Denver, Colorado November 13, 2010
The Regional Analysis Problem
� Regional analysis in the United States is limited by
the Federal Information Processing Standards
(FIPS) codes created in the 1960’s.� State FIPS codes were assigned alphabetically for states beginning with 01 for Alabama.
� Within states, counties and comparable geographies were also done alphabetically beginning with 01 then 03 – new county option.
� Tyranny of the Alphabet – Easy to find individual state or county data in a list, but not to relate one jurisdiction to another in a table or spreadsheet.
Example: FIPS Code and Spatial Relationships for States Compared
Metropolitan Statistical Areas
� Regional aggregation was done in the establishment of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), which were coded separately.
� Many of these regions matched the geography of the Metropolitan Councils of Government of that time.
� The Washington, D.C. Metro area is an example.
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (COG)(Yellow)
MSAs & CMSAs 2010 (Grey)Non-metro (Green)
Although Semi-autonomous Regions, States are too big for regional analysis
Counties, 3,034 of them, the original substate district & basic Census FIPS coded unit, are too small for regional analysis.
Note: 35,937 sub-county governments - 19,431 municipal & 16,506 township
Most analysis focuses on theMetropolitan Areas – MSAs
MSA Limitations
� The relationships which define MSAs, primarily workforce commuting, led to their widening over time to include more jurisdictions.
� Since the geographic base changes over time, there is no option for long term analysis of change on a standard multi-jurisdictional regional geography.
� MSA totals obscure differences within the underlying territory, which has lead to faulty analysis.
� Development of Micropolitan Areas is not a solution.
MSA focus leaves out Non-Metro Counties
Alternative?� Most states established some form of multi-county regional councils in the 1960’s & 1970’s which covered all counties, metro or non-metro.
� Many, like Virginia, used sub-state districts as regions for data aggregation and use by other State agencies.
� The region number or letter could be used like the Federal FIPS code for sorting and aggregating data by region.
� These regions also have organized regional governmental units using the data for regional planning and some were capable of regional action. Such regions “work” for their local governments
Virginia Planning Districts – Region Numbers Have Worked Like a FIPS Code Since 1968
Using the Various Sub-State Districts Nationally produces a MapSomething Like This:
Regional Councils Are Emerging Regional Communities; Regions that work
Need for Multi-regional Analysis Emerges
� In the 1990’s, commerce, industry and even workforce commuting expanded along Interstate and Primary routes, showing connections between MSAs and a broad range of non-metropolitan counties, often in adjoining states.
�To understand these relationships, there was clear need for multi-regional analysis, but no data sets supported this.
�The author began work in 1998 to promote the development of such a system, submitting a comment to the U.S. Census Bureau February 12, 1999 relative to: Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas.
Conclusion: Global Geo-code system needed
� Continued work on the issue and a review of other national and international systems led to the conclusion that a new global geo-code system design was needed.
� The goal of the system is to cover all geographic territory of our local planet within a ten base system. There are different systems of accounting for continents. These can be reviewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents
� The intent of the geo-codes is to group political entities based on relative proximity.
� The purpose of this paper is to present the prototype design for the purpose of further consideration by the user communities.
Geo-codes Using North to South, East to West – NSEW – Numbering
0000 Earth
0900 Arctic Ocean
1000 Europe
2000 Africa
3000 Atlantic Ocean
4000 Antarctica
5000 Americas
6000 Pacific Ocean
7000 Oceana
8000 Asia
9000 Indian OceanMap source: http://www.clker.com/clipart-13513.html
Political-Geographic Area Groups
� Using the Sector and Region names utilized by the United Nations, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm, the next levels of the global geo-code prototype system was developed.
� Country names and relationships were matched to those on the Statoids website maintained by Gwilliam Law http://www.statoids.com/wab.html
� North American example -
Geo-codes – Americas UN Northern Grouping of Political-Geographic Areas
5 0 00 Americas 5000
Sector Code
Code Assigned For UN Northern Grouping
Code Assigned To UN Political
Geographic Name
UN Political-Geographic Name
Base Global Geo- Code
5 1 10 Greenland 5110
5 1 20 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 5120
5 1 30 Canada 5130
5 1 40 United States of America 5140
5 1 50 Bermuda 5150
5 1 60 United States Minor Outlying Islands
5160
United States Country Geo-code - 5140
� Next step is a geo-code for each State.
� The U.S. Census Bureau has defined regions and divisions.
� This framework was used to develop NSEW State geo-codes that follow:
State Geo-codes – USA - What does this accomplish? Difference – Maine is 01 compared to FIPS 23; Alabama is
21 compared to 01
Division Geo-code Region/ State Abr. FIPS 1. New England Northeast/ 01 Maine ME 23 02 New Hampshire NH 33 03 Vermont VT 50 04 Massachusetts MA 25 05 Rhode Island RI 44 06 Connecticut CT 09 2. Middle Atlantic Northeast / 07 New York NY 36 08 New Jersey NJ 34 09 Pennsylvania PA 42 3. South Atlantic South / 10 Delaware DE 10 11 Maryland MD 24 12 District of Columbia DC 11 13 Virginia VA 51 14 West Virginia WV 54 15 North Carolina NC 37 16 South Carolina SC 45 17 Georgia GA 13 18 Florida FL 12 4. East South Central South / 19 Kentucky KY 21 20 Tennessee TN 47 21 Alabama AL 01 22 Mississippi MS 28
Division Geo-code Region/ State Abr. FIPS 5. West South Central South / 23 Louisiana LA 22 24 Arkansas AR 05 25 Oklahoma OK 40 26 Texas TX 48 6. East North Central Midwest / 27 Michigan MI 26 28 Ohio OH 39 29 Indiana IN 18 30 Illinois IL 17 31 Wisconsin WI 55 7. West North Central Midwest/ 32 Minnesota MN 27 33 North Dakota ND 38 34 South Dakota SD 46 35 Iowa IA 19 36 Nebraska NE 31 37 Missouri MO 29 38 Kansas KS 20 8. Mountain West/ 39 Montana MT 30 40 Wyoming WY 56 41 Idaho ID 16 42 Nevada NV 32 43 Utah UT 49 44 Colorado CO 08 45 New Mexico NM 35 46 Arizona AZ 04 9. Pacific West/ 47 Alaska AK 02 48 Washington WA 53 49 Oregon OR 41 50 California CA 06 51 Hawaii HI 15
How do geo-codes enable region-building for analysis?
Example: Mid-Atlantic Region with Regional Councils as the Unit of Analysis State Codes 5140-08 NJ to 5140-14 WV
In-State Example: Virginia Alphabetic by County and City – Charles City County
Charles City County with its Region –Richmond Regional Planning District
Mid-Atlantic Change by Regional Council Region – Richmond Region in its Mid-Atlantic Context, not just Virginia
% change – provides a different picture .
Loss of countryside –viewshed? Region land area less Federal and State Lands – including Urban Areas
Overall density in 2005 drops when Urban areas pull ed out – with time series we could see better the sprawls as buil d out occurs.
All Global Geo-code Prototype: 0000 Earth; 0900 Arctic Ocean; 1000 Europe
2000 Africa
3000 AtlanticOcean
4000 Antarctica5000 Americas
6000 PacificOcean
7000 Oceana
9000 Indian Ocean
8000 Asia
Goals of this Presentation� Report on this effort to researchers and practitioners.
� Find people who may be interested in this project for analysis of other multi-jurisdictional regions.
� What can the Geo-codes be used for? see
Data analysis and Topic Tags – see Delicious Tags for geography and subject at I.see.regions.work
http://delicious.com/I.see.regions.work and
Regional Community Development News
http://regional-communities.blogspot.com/
Thank you!
Regional Intelligence – Regional Communities, LLC
Tom (Thomas J.) Christoffel, AICP, MeRSA, Editor
Regional Community Development News
P.O. Box 1444
Front Royal, Virginia (VA 22630), USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone or fax: 1-540-635-8582
Web: http://ri-rc.com
The “Regions Work” Initiative © 1998
