I hope you're going to aggregate those tracts into some larger areas, because the margins of error on these estimates are going to be astronomical. Most tracts have fairly low workplace numbers because they are essentially residential and only have local businesses/schools/churches providing employment. Tracts with really large employment counts often have few residents, e.g. airports. Some tracts are low on both, e.g. large parks. It also depends on how good a job the local area has done at tracting and retracting every ten years.

Good luck.

Patty Becker

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Steven Farber <Steven.Farber@geog.utah.edu> wrote:

We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City.

Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A).

From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up).

Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this?

In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics.

Many thanks for your comments.

Steve

Steven Farber, PhD

Assistant Professor

Department of Geography

University of Utah

http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news@chrispy.net
https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

Patricia C. (Patty) Becker
APB Associates/Southeast Michigan Census Council (SEMCC)
28300 Franklin Rd, Southfield, MI 48034
office: 248-354-6520
home:248-355-2428
pbecker@umich.edu