Comparison of Automated Zone Design Census Output Areas with Existing Output Areas in South Africa
South Africa is one of the few countries that have stopped using the same Enumeration Areas (EAs) for census enumeration and dissemination. The advantage of this change is that confidentiality issue could be addressed for census dissemination as the design of geographic unit for collection is mainly to ensure that this unit is covered by one enumerator. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the performance of automated zone design output areas against non-zone design developed geographies using the 2001 census data, and 2011 census to some extent, as the main input. The comparison of the Automated Zone-design Tool (AZTool) census output areas with the Small Area Layers (SALs) and SubPlaces based on confidentiality limit, population distribution, and degree of homogeneity, as well as shape compactness, was undertaken. Further, SPSS was employed for validation of the AZTool output results. The results showed that AZTool developed output areas out-perform the existing official SAL and SubPlaces with regard to minimum population threshold, population distribution and to some extent to homogeneity. Therefore, it was concluded that AZTool program provides a new alternative to the creation of optimised census output areas for dissemination of population census data in South Africa.
[1] C. Schwabe, The South African census user’s handbook: Analysing data from 1996 census. Cape Town, RSA: Human Sciences Research Council Publishers, 2003.
[2] Stats SA, Census 2011 methodology and highlights of key results. Pretoria, RSA: Statistics South Africa, Report no. 03-01-42, 29 pp., ISBN 978-0-621-41389-2, 2003.
[3] H. Margeot and S. Ramjith, “The South African census 2001 spatial information system data capture problems”, International Conference on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development, 2 – 5 October 2001, Kenya.
[4] Stats SA and HSRC, Using the 2001 census: Approaches to analysing data. RSA: Statistics South Africa and Human Sciences Research Council, 244 p, 2007.
[5] P.O. Owiti, “Embedded GIS for census mapping”, Nairobi, Kenya, 2008. Available from: http://www.map-gis-rs.blogspot.com/2008/03/gis-for-census.html (Accessed 8 January 2012).
[6] UN, Handbook on Geographic Information Systems and digital mapping. Studies in Methods, Series F No. 79. New York: United Nations Publication, 2000.
[7] UN, “Integration of GPS, digital imagery and GIS with census mapping,” United Nations Expert Group Meeting to Review Critical Issue Relevant to the Planning of the 2010 Round of Population and housing Censuses, 15 – 17 September 2004, New York.
[8] UN, Handbook on geospatial infrastructure in support of census activities. Studies in Methods, Series F No. 103. New York: United Nations Publication, 2009.
[9] Stats SA, Census 2001. How the count was done. RSA: Statistics South Africa, 2003.
[10] H. Verhoef and N. Grobbelaar, “The development of a Small Area Layer for South Africa for census data dissemination”, Statistics South Africa, 2005. Available from: http://www.cartesia.org/geodoc/icc2005/pdf/poster/TEMA26/HELENE%20VERHOEF.pdf (Accessed 19 November 2009).
[11] S. Cockings, A. Harfoot, D. Martin and D. Hornby, “Maintaining existing zoning systems using automated zone-design techniques: methods for creating the 2011 census output geographies for England and Wales,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 43, pp. 2399 – 2418, 2011.
[12] S. Cockings, A. Harfoot, D. Martin and D. Hornby, “Getting the foundations right: spatial building blocks for official population statistics,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 45, pp. 1403 – 1420, 2013.
[13] R. Flowerdew, D.J. Manley and C.F. Sabel, “Neighbourhood effects on health: Does it matter where you draw the boundaries?” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 66, pp. 1241 – 1255, 2008.
[14] M. Ralphs and L. Ang, Optimized geographies for data reporting: Zone design tools for census output geographies, Wellington: Statistics New Zealand, Statistics New Zealand Working Paper No 09–01, 2009.
[15] D. Martin, S. Cockings and A. Harfoot, “Development of a geographical framework for census workplace data,” Journal of Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176 (2), pp. 1 – 18, 2013.
[16] C. E. Sabel, W. Kihal, D. Bard and C. Weber, “Creation of synthetic homogeneous neighbourhoods using zone design algorithms to explore relationships between asthma and deprivation in Strasbourg, France,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 91, pp. 110 – 121, 2013.
[17] R. Haynes, K. Daras, R. Reading and A. Jones, “Modifiable neighbourhood units, zone design and residents’ perceptions,” Health and Place, vol. 13, pp. 812 – 825, 2007.
[18] K. Daras, “An information statistics approach to zone design in the geography of health outcomes and provision”, unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Newcastle, England, 2006.
[19] T. Mokhele, O. Mutanga and F. Ahmed, “Development of census output areas with AZTool in South Africa,” South African Journal of Science, vol. 112 (7/8), pp. 1 – 7, 2016.
[20] T. Mokhele, O. Mutanga and F. Ahmed, “Effects of different building blocks designs on the statistical characteristics of Automated Zone-design Tool output areas,” South African Journal of Geomatics, vol. 6(2), pp. 155 – 171, 2017.
[21] HSRC, “2001 census EA estimates. Human Sciences Research Council in collaboration with Prof DJ Stoker”, unpublished. Pretoria, South Africa, 2005.
[22] S. Cockings and D. Martin, “Zone design for environment and health studies using pre-aggregated data,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 60, pp. 2729 – 2742, 2005.
[23] R. Haynes, A. Jones, R. Reading, K. Daras and A. Emond, “Neighbourhood variations in child accidents and related child and maternal characteristics: does area definition make a difference?” Health and Place, vol. 14, pp. 693 – 701, 2008.
[24] M. Tranmer and D. Steel, “Using census data to investigate the causes of the ecological fallacy,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 30, pp. 817 – 831, 1998.
[25] M. Tranmer and D. Steel, “Using local census data to investigate scale effects,” in Modelling scale in geographical information science. N.J. Tate and P.M. Atkinson, Eds. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2001, pp. 105 – 122.
[26] D. Martin, A. Nolan and M. Tranmer, “The application of zone-design methodology in the 2001 UK Census,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 33, pp. 1949 – 1962, 2001.
[27] R. Flowerdew, “How serious is the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem for analysis of English census data?” Population Trends, vol. 145, pp. 106 – 118, 2011.
[28] A. Drackley, K. B. Newbold and C. Taylor, “Defining socially-based spatial boundaries in the Region of Peel, Ontario, Canada,” International Journal of Health Geographics, vol. 10 (38), pp. 1 – 12, 2011.
[1] C. Schwabe, The South African census user’s handbook: Analysing data from 1996 census. Cape Town, RSA: Human Sciences Research Council Publishers, 2003.
[2] Stats SA, Census 2011 methodology and highlights of key results. Pretoria, RSA: Statistics South Africa, Report no. 03-01-42, 29 pp., ISBN 978-0-621-41389-2, 2003.
[3] H. Margeot and S. Ramjith, “The South African census 2001 spatial information system data capture problems”, International Conference on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development, 2 – 5 October 2001, Kenya.
[4] Stats SA and HSRC, Using the 2001 census: Approaches to analysing data. RSA: Statistics South Africa and Human Sciences Research Council, 244 p, 2007.
[5] P.O. Owiti, “Embedded GIS for census mapping”, Nairobi, Kenya, 2008. Available from: http://www.map-gis-rs.blogspot.com/2008/03/gis-for-census.html (Accessed 8 January 2012).
[6] UN, Handbook on Geographic Information Systems and digital mapping. Studies in Methods, Series F No. 79. New York: United Nations Publication, 2000.
[7] UN, “Integration of GPS, digital imagery and GIS with census mapping,” United Nations Expert Group Meeting to Review Critical Issue Relevant to the Planning of the 2010 Round of Population and housing Censuses, 15 – 17 September 2004, New York.
[8] UN, Handbook on geospatial infrastructure in support of census activities. Studies in Methods, Series F No. 103. New York: United Nations Publication, 2009.
[9] Stats SA, Census 2001. How the count was done. RSA: Statistics South Africa, 2003.
[10] H. Verhoef and N. Grobbelaar, “The development of a Small Area Layer for South Africa for census data dissemination”, Statistics South Africa, 2005. Available from: http://www.cartesia.org/geodoc/icc2005/pdf/poster/TEMA26/HELENE%20VERHOEF.pdf (Accessed 19 November 2009).
[11] S. Cockings, A. Harfoot, D. Martin and D. Hornby, “Maintaining existing zoning systems using automated zone-design techniques: methods for creating the 2011 census output geographies for England and Wales,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 43, pp. 2399 – 2418, 2011.
[12] S. Cockings, A. Harfoot, D. Martin and D. Hornby, “Getting the foundations right: spatial building blocks for official population statistics,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 45, pp. 1403 – 1420, 2013.
[13] R. Flowerdew, D.J. Manley and C.F. Sabel, “Neighbourhood effects on health: Does it matter where you draw the boundaries?” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 66, pp. 1241 – 1255, 2008.
[14] M. Ralphs and L. Ang, Optimized geographies for data reporting: Zone design tools for census output geographies, Wellington: Statistics New Zealand, Statistics New Zealand Working Paper No 09–01, 2009.
[15] D. Martin, S. Cockings and A. Harfoot, “Development of a geographical framework for census workplace data,” Journal of Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176 (2), pp. 1 – 18, 2013.
[16] C. E. Sabel, W. Kihal, D. Bard and C. Weber, “Creation of synthetic homogeneous neighbourhoods using zone design algorithms to explore relationships between asthma and deprivation in Strasbourg, France,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 91, pp. 110 – 121, 2013.
[17] R. Haynes, K. Daras, R. Reading and A. Jones, “Modifiable neighbourhood units, zone design and residents’ perceptions,” Health and Place, vol. 13, pp. 812 – 825, 2007.
[18] K. Daras, “An information statistics approach to zone design in the geography of health outcomes and provision”, unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Newcastle, England, 2006.
[19] T. Mokhele, O. Mutanga and F. Ahmed, “Development of census output areas with AZTool in South Africa,” South African Journal of Science, vol. 112 (7/8), pp. 1 – 7, 2016.
[20] T. Mokhele, O. Mutanga and F. Ahmed, “Effects of different building blocks designs on the statistical characteristics of Automated Zone-design Tool output areas,” South African Journal of Geomatics, vol. 6(2), pp. 155 – 171, 2017.
[21] HSRC, “2001 census EA estimates. Human Sciences Research Council in collaboration with Prof DJ Stoker”, unpublished. Pretoria, South Africa, 2005.
[22] S. Cockings and D. Martin, “Zone design for environment and health studies using pre-aggregated data,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 60, pp. 2729 – 2742, 2005.
[23] R. Haynes, A. Jones, R. Reading, K. Daras and A. Emond, “Neighbourhood variations in child accidents and related child and maternal characteristics: does area definition make a difference?” Health and Place, vol. 14, pp. 693 – 701, 2008.
[24] M. Tranmer and D. Steel, “Using census data to investigate the causes of the ecological fallacy,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 30, pp. 817 – 831, 1998.
[25] M. Tranmer and D. Steel, “Using local census data to investigate scale effects,” in Modelling scale in geographical information science. N.J. Tate and P.M. Atkinson, Eds. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2001, pp. 105 – 122.
[26] D. Martin, A. Nolan and M. Tranmer, “The application of zone-design methodology in the 2001 UK Census,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 33, pp. 1949 – 1962, 2001.
[27] R. Flowerdew, “How serious is the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem for analysis of English census data?” Population Trends, vol. 145, pp. 106 – 118, 2011.
[28] A. Drackley, K. B. Newbold and C. Taylor, “Defining socially-based spatial boundaries in the Region of Peel, Ontario, Canada,” International Journal of Health Geographics, vol. 10 (38), pp. 1 – 12, 2011.
@article{"International Journal of Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences:77589", author = "T. Mokhele and O. Mutanga and F. Ahmed", title = "Comparison of Automated Zone Design Census Output Areas with Existing Output Areas in South Africa", abstract = "South Africa is one of the few countries that have stopped using the same Enumeration Areas (EAs) for census enumeration and dissemination. The advantage of this change is that confidentiality issue could be addressed for census dissemination as the design of geographic unit for collection is mainly to ensure that this unit is covered by one enumerator. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the performance of automated zone design output areas against non-zone design developed geographies using the 2001 census data, and 2011 census to some extent, as the main input. The comparison of the Automated Zone-design Tool (AZTool) census output areas with the Small Area Layers (SALs) and SubPlaces based on confidentiality limit, population distribution, and degree of homogeneity, as well as shape compactness, was undertaken. Further, SPSS was employed for validation of the AZTool output results. The results showed that AZTool developed output areas out-perform the existing official SAL and SubPlaces with regard to minimum population threshold, population distribution and to some extent to homogeneity. Therefore, it was concluded that AZTool program provides a new alternative to the creation of optimised census output areas for dissemination of population census data in South Africa.", keywords = "AZTool, enumeration areas, small areal layers, South Africa. ", volume = "12", number = "6", pages = "124-7", }
