2005 median income – This is not the average income for the tract but the income that separates the top half of reported incomes from the lower half of incomes in the area.  This is a commonly used value when considering income because it prevents incredibly high and incredibly low incomes from affecting a stated average.

married-couple families – StatCan records income for different family types.  There are lone-parent families, of which “female-lone parent” and “male-lone parent” are subsets.  StatCan also lists dual-parent families (my term).  In these are two distinct kinds: married-couple families and common-law families. However, Statistics Canada does not combine these values for us into one field as they do with lone-parent families, so we must consider them individually.

2010_0525_median_income_married

2010_0525_median_income_married

[Click here for a full-window map.]

Two interesting patterns emerge on this map.  The first pattern is the manner in which lower median incomes become prevalent as one moves west to east.  The further into old Halifax County one drives, the lower the median income will be.  Presumably, lower rural-based incomes and dual-parent families who hold only one reported income between them account for this.  Note, however, that in rural western Halifax county, we nonetheless find higher incomes: the incomes over extreme western Halifax are nearly double the incomes in extreme eastern Halifax.

The second pattern is the high incomes to be found on Halifax Peninsula and along the Bedford Basin.  These incomes should be expected, given the socio-economic patterns we see in these areas (e.g.: highly educated, fully employed households). What is of interest, though, is the proximity of Halifax’s highest median income to its lowest:

Highest income for married couples in Halifax:

• Tract 2050005.00 (which I’ve called South End-Gorsebrook), lying on the peninsula’s shores:  $194,622

Lowest income for married couples in Halifax:

• Tract 2050004.01 (which I’ve called South End-Railyards): $36,179.

These tracts, nearly side-by-side one another on the Halifax Peninsula, house two distinct populations that are tied at the hip – the student underclass studying and working at the post-secondary schools and hospitals that dot the south end, and the professional class that is employed by these institutions.  I’m painting with broad strokes here, of course, but it does serve as a little bit of context to explain how these two different income levels lie within only two or three kilometres of one another.

-ms

1.  Women who are not in a married relationship in Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2006 Census:

Women not in a married relationship in Halifax, 2006 Census

dfdf

2.  Men who are not in a married relationship in Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2006 Census:

Men not in a married relatonship in Halifax, 2006 Census

(*) Careful attention must be given to meaning of these values.  These maps represent the marital status of all people living in a tract, over the age of 15 – a question that was asked on the 2006 Census.  When a person was asked this question, they could respond by stating that they were:

• Never legally married (single)
• Legally married (and not separated)
• Legally married (but separated)
• Divorced
• Widowed

For the purposes of these maps, I have considered anyone who answered “Never legally married (single)”, “Legally married (but separated)”, “Divorced”, or “Widowed” to be your potential special some one who you might meet by accident walking down Spring Garden Road on a sunny, Sunday afternoon.

Note, however, that this census question does not take into account people who are living in a common-law relationship.  StatCan was concerned with marital status as opposed to “relationship status” when asking this question.  The number of common-law relationships in a tract therefore muddles the values because some one who is “never been married (single)” or “divorced,” for instance, may actually be living with some one in a common-law relationship.  In the future I’ll manipulate the numbers to account for this, so for now understand that these maps, strictly speaking, reflect marital status in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Summary Data:

Population of Halifax, aged 15 or above: 312,650

• Males, 15+: 148,390
  • Males 15+, not in a marital relationship: 74,490 (50.2%)
• Females, 15+ 164,260
  • Females, 15+,  not in a marital relationship: 90,350 (55.0%)

Please feel free to comment on the maps or to note any errors to be corrected.  In the mean time, Happy Valentine’s Day.

–

Citations and disclaimers.

These maps were published with data gathered from Statistics Canada 2006 Census Tracts as well as from aggregated data retrieved from the Equinox data delivery system (Tables 97-552-XCB2006005 and 97-552-XCB2006006).  This data was used strictly for scholarly research purposes and in no way in the pursuit of any commercial or income-generating venture.

Halifax unemployment data, 2006 census

First, some observations on the projection.  The unemployment figures for Halifax’s 88 Census Tracts ranged from 2.1% in Fairview (Tract 205.0017.00, south of Hwy 102 and north of the St. Margaret’s Bay Road) to 12.8% in Shannon Park (Tract 205.0112.00, south of the MacKay Bridge at Windmill Road), with the city’s average unemployment rate at 6.3%. This is a 10.7% spread, which I’ve separated into 5 fields with a 3% spread in each.  By showing 5 different unemployment rate groups, this spread gives a sharp level of detail, but on the other hand it creates a patchwork-quilt of colors with few discernible patterns.  Projecting data requires balancing data against visuals – if the data is not represented properly, then patterns may not emerge, or the patterns that do emerge may be misleading altogether.  Be sure, therefore, to click through to the original data files for each tract (links are provided on the tract’s data boxes).

And now, some observations on this map against others.  Thus far I’ve noted how Timberlea and the Sackvilles tend to stand out on census maps.  Both areas saw a significant decrease in population from 2001 to 2006, and my recent population density map shows that both areas are denser than their surrounding (more-)rural neighbours thanks to the network of highways spidering out from the peninsula.  What today’s map highlights is that both areas’ population decreases are mirrored by higher unemployment rates.  The areas may have a denser population than their surrounding census tracts, but people seem to be leaving (possibly to find work elsewhere?).

Base figures:

Population of Halifax in 2006: 372858
Labour force [persons ages 15+]: 309270
Unemployed persons in labour force: 13385
Unemployment Rate: 6.3%

Population of Nova Scotia in 2006: 913462
Labour force [persons ages 15+]: 756595
Unemployed persons in labour force: 43530
Unemployment Rate: 9.1%

20101031-Population_Density_HRM_2006

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

A census tract (CT) is a a compact, populated area.  It should have clearly defined boundaries, a population that is fairly homogeneous from a socio-economic standpoint, with roughly 2500 to 8000 (but ideally about 4000) people living in it (source).

2010_0109_Pop_Growth_Decline_HRM_2001-2006

This map reveals interesting trends in Halifax population patterns. For the most part, peninsular Halifax and old Dartmouth have stagnant or declining populations, while the suburbs (especially in western HRM) show strong population growth.  Rural areas such as old Halifax County and the Chebucto Peninsula have roughly remained stagnant.  Some CTs, however, have rates of decline or growth that differ in large degree from their neighbouring CTs, including:

• 2500008.00 . Located on Halifax Peninsula, this 16.5% spike in growth may be caused by the cumulative effect of condominium developments such as the Bishop’s Landing development on the waterfront.
• 2500131.02 and surrounding areas. Lower Sackville showed a localized and sharp population decline, with rates ranging from 5-7%.
• 2050025.02 . Clayton Park, despite being so close to peninsular Halifax, showed a 11.5% decline in population.

It will be interesting to see how the proposed development of the land east of Bayers Lake, which is divided between 2500025.03 and 2500024.00 will affect population rates in this area.  Perhaps the development (which likely won’t be ready in time for the 2011 census) will improve growth figures for CT 2050024.00 in the future.

Producing this map reinforces the reasons why census tracts should all have a uniform size.  Halifax Regional Municipality covers a large amount of urban, suburban, and rural land, and its census tracts’ population figures range from under 1000 to over 6000.  This spread makes it difficult to measure one CT’s population growth or decline against another CT’s own rate.  For instance the population of 205113.00, off of Windmill Road in Dartmouth, declined by 185 people in 2006, a difference of -20.6%.  Meanwhile, the population of 2050004.02, in old Halifax’s south end, declined by 158 people in 2005, a difference of -3.6%.  Since populations can vary quite a bit from one census tract to another, be sure to check the actual population figures of surrounding census tracts when comparing one colour code to another.

Population of Halifax in 2001: 359183

Population of Halifax in 2006: 372858

Difference: 3.8%

20100104_2006_HRM_Census_Tracts_Population

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.