Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Evaluation of Error and Bias in Census Tract-Level Age/Sex-Specific Population Estimates: Component I (Net-Migration) vs Component III (Hamilton–Perry)

  • Published:
Population Research and Policy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the housing-unit method continues to be the preferred method nationwide for producing small-area population estimates, this procedures lacks a method for making age/sex-specific estimates. This paper reports evaluation research on implementation of component-based methods for estimating census tract populations with age/sex detail. Two alternatives are explored: (1) the Component I method relying upon estimates of births, deaths, and net-migration and (2) the Component III method relying solely upon 1990 and 2000 Census counts. From an April 1, 2000 base, each method is used to make estimates moving forward to an April 1, 2010 estimate that is compared to the results of the 2010 Census. The two methods are compared in terms of accuracy and bias using both absolute and algebraic mean and median percentage errors. Results are reviewed and discussed in light of their implications for applied demographers tasked with making small-area demographic estimates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, J., Alcantara, A., & Ruan, X. M. (2011). A stochastic version of the Brass PF ratio adjustment of age-specific fertility schedules. PLoS One, 6(8), e23222. doi:10.1371/journalpone0023222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J., Alcantara, A., Ruan, X. M., & Watkins, K. (2012). The impact of incomplete geocoding on small area population estimates. Journal of Population Research, 29, 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J., Ruan, X. M., Alcantara, A., Jones, T., Watkins, K., et al. (2008). Density-dependence in urban housing unit growth: An evaluation of the Pearl–Reed model for predicting housing unit stock at the census tract level. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 33, 155–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brass, W. (1964) Uses of Census and Survey Data for the Estimation of Vital Rates. New York: United Nations, E/CN.14/CAS/7. November.

  • Brass, W. (1968). The demography of tropical Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, T. (2004). Population estimates. In J. Siegel & D. Swanson (Eds.), The methods and materials of demography. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, T., & George, M. V. (2004). GIS. In J. Siegel & D. Swanson (Eds.), The methods and materials of demography. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh F (1981) The Census Bureau’s 1980 Census test of population estimates. In: Small-area population estimates—methods and their accuracy and new metropolitan area definitions and their impact on the private and public sector, series GE-41, No. 7. Washington, DC: Government Planning Office.

  • Centers for Disease Control. (1999). National Program of cancer registries cancer surveillance system rationale and approach. Atlanta: CDC.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, S., & Bregt, A. (2001). Assessing fitness for use: The expected value of spatial datasets. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(5), 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dozier, E. (1970). Pueblo Indians of North America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drummond, W. J. (1995). Address matching: GIS technology for mapping human activity patterns. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(2), 240–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esparza, A., & Donelson, A. (2008). Colonias in Arizona and New Mexico: Border Poverty and Community Development Solutions. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, P. F., & Langford, M. (1995). Modeling the errors in areal interpolation between zonal systems using Monte Carlo simulation. Environment and Planning A, 27, 212–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdrew, R., & Green, M. (1992). Developments in areal interpolation methods and GIS. The Annals of Regional Science, 26, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, M. V. (2004). Population projections. In J. Siegel & D. Swanson (Eds.), The methods and materials of demography. New York: Springer.

  • Gilboa, S. M. (2006). Comparison of residential geocoding methods in a population-based study of air quality and birth defects. Environmental Research, 101, 256–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. W., Wilson, J. P., & Knoblock, C. A. (2007). From text to geographic coordinates: The current state of geocoding. URISA Journal, 19(1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haining, R. (2003). Spatial data analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge: New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, C., & Perry, J. (1962). A short method for projecting population by age from one decennial census to another. Social Forces, 41(2), 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, G., Coleman, C., & Devine, J. (2003) Evaluation of 2000 Subcounty Population Estimates. Population Estimates Branch, Population Division. US Census Bureau.

  • Harris, R., Sleight, P., & Webber, R. (2005). Geodemographics, GIS, and neighborhood targeting. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoque, N. (2010). An evaluation of small area population estimates produced by component method II, ratio correlation, and housing unit methods for 1990. The Open Demography Journal, 3, 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, D. G., & Thompson, D. J. (1952). A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 663–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isserman, A. (1977). The accuracy of population projections for subcounty areas. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 43, 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarosz, B. (2008). Using assessor parcel data to maintain housing unit counts for small area population estimates. In S. Murdock & D. Swanson (Eds.), Applied demography in the 21st century (pp. 89–101). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, H. A., & Durcik, M. (2004). Evaluation of uncertainties associated with geocoding techniques. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructural Engineering, 19, 170–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyfitz, N. (1981). The limits of population forecasting. Population and Development Review, 7, 579–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyfitz, N., & Caswell, H. (2005). Applied mathematical demography (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, D. (1981). Re-evaluation of the logistic curve for human populations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 144, 94–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, P. (1945). The Use of matrices in certain population mathematics. Biometrika, 33(3), 183–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, P. (1948). Some further notes on the use of matrices in population mathematics. Biometrika, 35(3–4), 213–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. (1995). Complexicty accuracy, and utility of official population projections. Mathematical Population Studies, 5(3), 203–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. J. (1956). Elements of mathematical biology. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunn, D., Simpson, S., Diamond, I., & Middleton, L. (1998). The accuracy of age-specific population estimates for small areas in Britain. Population Studies, 52, 27–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, S. (2006). A stochastic population model for Lepidum Papilliferum (Brassicaceae), a rare desert ephemeral with a persistent seed bank. American Journal of Botany, 93(6), 891–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, S., Ellis, D. (1991). Applied demography. An introduction to basic concepts, methods, and data. Boulder: Westview Press.

  • Oliver, M. N. (2005). Geographic bias related to geocoding in epidemiologic studies. International Journal of Health Geographics, 4(29), Online.

  • Pflaumer, P. (1992). Forecasting US population totals with the Box-Jenkins approach. International Journal of Forecasting, 8, 329–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popoff, C. A., & Judson, D. (2004). Selected general methods. In: J. S. Siegel & D. Swanson (Eds.), The methods and materials of demography (pp. 644–675). New York: Springer.

  • Preston, S., Hueverline, P., & Guillot, M. (2003). Demography: Measuring and modeling population processes. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, J. H. (2001). On the accuracy of Tiger-type geocoded address data in relation to cadastral and census area units. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(5), 473–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, A. (1995). Population forecasting: Do simple models outperform complex models? Mathematical Population Studies, 5, 259–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadahiro, Y. (2000). Accuracy of count data transferred through the areal weighting interpolation method. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14, 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samford, M. R. (1967). On sampling with replacement with unequal probabilities of selection. Biometrika, 45, 499–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, J. (2008). Between two rivers: The Atrisco Land grant in Albuquerque history, 1692–1968. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, A., & Crosetti, A. (1954). Accuracy of the ratio-correlation method for estimating postcensal population. Land Economics, 30, 279–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahidullah, M., & Flotow, M. (2005). Criteria for selecting a suitable method for producing post-2000 county population estimates: A case study of population estimates in Illinois. Population Research and Policy Review, 24, 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shyrock, H., & Siegel, J. (1980). The methods and materials of demography (Vol. II). Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J. (2003). Applied demogaphy: Applications to business, government, law, and public policy. San Diego: Academic.

  • Simpson, L. (2002). Geography conversion tables: A framework for conversion of data between geographical units. International Journal of Population Geography, 8(1), 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (1987). Tests of forecast accuracy and bias for county population projections. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(400), 991–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Lewis, B. (1983). Some new techniques for applying the housing unit method of local population estimation: Further evidence. Demography, 20(3), 407–413.

  • Smith, S., & Mandell, M. (1984). A comparison of population estimation methods: Housing unit versus component II, ratio correlation, and administrative records. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(386), 282–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Shahidullah, M. (1995). An evaluation of projection errors for census tracts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429), 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Sincich, T. (1990). The relationship between length of the base period and population forecast errors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(410), 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Swanson, D. (1998). In defense of the net migrant. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 24, 249–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Tayman, J., & Swanson, D. (2001). State and local population projections: Methodology and analysis. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starsinic, D., & Zitter, M. (1968). Accuracy of the housing unit method in preparing population estimates for cities. Demography, 5, 475–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoto, M. (1983). The accuracy of population projections. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D., & McKibben, J. (2010). New directions in the development of population estimates in the United States. Population Research and Policy Review, 29(6), 797–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D., & Tayman, J. (2012). Subnational population estimates. New York: Springer.

  • Swanson, D., Schlottman, A., & Schmidt, B. (2010). Forecasting the population of census tracts by age and sex: An example of the Hamilton–Perry method in action. Population Research and Policy Review, 29(1), 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, M. (1969). Some stochastic versions of the matrix model for population dynamics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64(325), 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tayman, J. (1999). On the validity of MAPE as a measure of forecast accuracy. Population Research and Policy Review, 18(4), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tayman, J., Schafer, E., & Carter, L. (1998). The role of population size in the determination and prediction of population forecast errors: An evaluation using confidence intervals for subcounty areas. Population Research and Policy Review, 17(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, W. R. (1979). Smooth pycnophylactic interpolation for geographical regions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 519–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1983). Manual X. New York: UN Population Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, P. R., & Kale, B. (1985). Refinements of small-area population projection models: Results of a test based on 128 Wisconsin communities. Boston: Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America.

  • Voss, P. R., Long, D. D., & Hammer, R. B. (1999) When Census Geography Doesn’t Work: Using Ancillary Information to Improve the Spatial Interpolation of Demographic Data. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Working Paper No. 99-26.

  • White, H. R. (1954). Empirical study of selected methods of projecting state population. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 480–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witmer, J. A., & Samuels, M. L. (1998). Statistics for the life sciences. New York: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandbergen, P. (2009). Geocoding quality and implications for spatial analysis. The Geography Compass, 3(2), 647–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandbergen, P., & Ignizio, D. (2010). Comparison of dyasymetric mapping techniques for small area population estimates. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 37(3), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geospatial and Population Studies, University of New Mexico, 1 University of New Mexico, MSC06 3510, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA

    Jack Baker, Adelamar Alcantara, Xiaomin Ruan & Srini Vasan

  2. Department of Geography, University of New Mexico, 1 University of New Mexico, MSC06 3510, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA

    Adelamar Alcantara

  3. Mid-Region Council of Governments, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Kendra Watkins

Authors
  1. Jack Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adelamar Alcantara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaomin Ruan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kendra Watkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Srini Vasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jack Baker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baker, J., Alcantara, A., Ruan, X. et al. A Comparative Evaluation of Error and Bias in Census Tract-Level Age/Sex-Specific Population Estimates: Component I (Net-Migration) vs Component III (Hamilton–Perry). Popul Res Policy Rev 32, 919–942 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9295-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9295-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation