Today’s maps visualizes population density in Halifax Regional Municipality as recorded in the 2006 Census of Canada.  This map demonstrates the clear urban-rural split in Halifax since the majority of census tracts outside of Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford/Sackville have a population density of less than 500 people per square kilometre:

Until you zoom into Halifax’s urban core, all of HRM appears to be washed out in a dull blue-white haze.  By zooming down toward Halifax Harbour, however, we begin to see definite density patterns that run along major transportation corridors.  In Dartmouth, high population numbers track along Main Street until it meets the Forest Hills Parkway, where the numbers begin to dwindle as suburban HRM turns into rural countryside.  The same can be said of Highway 102 through Bedford and of Highway 101 at “the Sackvilles”: the population is situated very close to the highways, creeping out from the centre.  Even west of the peninsula, the only census tract with a population density greater than 500 people per kilometre is in Timberlea, along Highway 103.

As with other mapped projections of census tract data for Halifax, the usual caveats apply.  Keep in mind that we’re examining population figures for a part of Canada where tract configurations vary wildly.  Some tracts are only 5 square kilometres while others are over 1000 square kilometres; populations range from the hundreds to the thousands.  With this in mind, it is best to compare tract density figures only to their surrounding tracts, or to other tracts of a similar size.

Base Statistics:

• Population of Nova Scotia, 2006: 913,462
• Total Area of Nova Scotia, 2006: 52917.4571 square KM
  • Population Density: 17.3

• Population of Halifax, 2006: 372,858
• Total Area of Halifax, 2006: 5,495.6192 square KM
  • Population Density: 67.8

Given the fact that I am working with data from the 2006 Census Tracts, I decided it would be important to begin by plotting a map that shows the population of Halifax Regional Municipality per census tract (CT).

What’s important to understand when looking at this map is that these are representations of just whole numbers – we’re not looking at a population rate of decline or density.  StatCan’s census tracts, rather, are developed by a set of guidelines that take in account more than only population rates.  Boundaries should follow easily recognizably physical boundaries or major arteries and have populations between 2500 and 8000 (ideally around 4000); the areas must be as compact as possible; and the populations should ideally be homogeneous in terms of socio-economic conditions (source).  Therefore, CTs with lower populations on Halifax Peninsula are more likely indicative of latent socio-economic factors that promote lower densities that any sort of StatCan motive to consider these tracts as demanding special attention.

My next map, I think, will demonstrate density or growth rates.  There was upwards of an 11% population growth rate in the Clayton Park area between 2001 and 2006, but the area’s surround census tracts didn’t see nearly as large an increase – that might be interesting to demonstrate on a map.

Finally, if there is a lesson to be learned on the production of this map, it’s to avoid using a blue gradient for HRM since it blends so easily with the shoreline and ocean.  My next colours will be bolder, for sure.

Some thoughts on the recent Stephen Abram essay making the rounds on the internet.  His article, “From Evolution to Revolution to Chaos? Reference in Transition?” in the September 2008 edition of Information Today is a call to arms.  Abram reminds us that it is unhealthy for ourselves and our profession if we are remain stuck in the mud with other reference “dinosaurs” instead of living in the present and looking to the future of the librarianship profession that consists of our constant and willing interaction with people and technology.  This is in no part a new call: the past ten years has altered education and librarianship by making teachers, instructors, and librarians more and more mediators between information and people through technology; our literature has produced a countless number of calls for (and admittedly against) the movement.

Abram’s article reinforces the resounding purpose of librarianship: service.  In spite of the all the new techs that can aid the user in his or her search, and no matter how adept the user might become at navigating one library’s outdated OPAC or another database’s boolean logic, the information profession needs to find new and novel ways to assert its ability to help others find, compile, and analyse data.  Some may object to Abram’s suggestion that we all join online simulations of the real world such as Second Life in order to reach out to others; others might reject the idea of the “service librarian” who roams the stacks, like a clerk in Chapters or Borders asking customers if they need help, but both activities are part of a growing culture of helping others in ways we might not have traditionally expected.

A few of Abram’s words resonate in this demand for service, especially those statements that speak of the “psychology” of librarianship and of service.  Abram suggests that “[w]e need to understand, and understand deeply, the role of the library in our end-users’ lives, work, research, and play. This is critical to our long-term success, and failure is not an option,” and holds that “we have to change our own personal behaviors and styles to adapt and reach beyond merely adding websites, technologies, and content to our toolkits.”  These two statements may be off-the-cuff remarks or opinions developed after years of thought and rumination in the business.  Or, they might be incredibly prescient about the present, and the future of information science (and “information service”).  Libraries, we’re all well aware, are more than a collection of books, computers, and archival material.  They are nerve-centres of human activity and human interaction.  Librarians, therefore, must make a wide-sweeping reference interview of the entire library-going population and determine why they go to the library and how they use the library’s resources.  Librarians need to determine what’s ‘going on in the heads’ of its users so that they can adopt to meet their needs.  This going beyond the question of technology.  The population will master the computer soon or later – we know that already.  The population will often find the information they’re looking for.  We need to gauge the population, rather, and learn about them, in order to figure out how to help them find the golden kernel of truth they’re looking for in an efficient time period. Technology can be a tool to help us with this macro-reference interview.  It should not be tool to give more strength to the gatekeepers.  It should be the tool used to liberate the user, the information, and the reference librarian.

Abram reminds us that “Our profession is complex. Our markets are complex. and our users are infinitely complex.” Whether or not such a statement is sheer wisdom or a rhetorical device, it ought to remind us of the fact that our profession is as much (if not more) about people than it is about information.  Information is a human construct.  It serves us, but only when we find it and share it with others.  Tech can help us in that regard, but it remains a tool subordinate to our relationship with the end-user.

This is nothing we don’t already know.  But it’s everything we need to keep reminding ourselves.