This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission from ARC's Regional Plan Update to show population forecasts by census tract for the Atlanta region.Attributes:GEOID10 = The entire Federal Information Processing Series (FIPS) code for this geography. FIPS codes were formerly known as Federal Information Processing Standards codes, until the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its decision in 2005 to remove geographic entity codes from its oversight. The Census Bureau continues to maintain and issue codes for geographic entities covered under FIPS oversight, albeit with a revised meaning for the FIPS acronym. Geographic entities covered under FIPS include states, counties, congressional districts, core based statistical areas, places, county subdivisions, subminor civil divisions, consolidated cities, and all types of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian areas. FIPS codes are assigned alphabetically according to the name of the geographic entity and may change to maintain alphabetic sort when new entities are created or names change. FIPS codes for specific geographic entity types are usually unique within the next highest level of geographic entity with which a nesting relationship exists. For example, FIPS state, congressional district, and core based statistical area codes are unique within nation; FIPS county, place, county subdivision, and subminor civil division codes are unique within state. The codes for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian areas also are unique within state; those areas in multiple states will have different codes for each state.NAME10 = Census tract numberPLNG_REGIO = Planning regionPercent_BA_or_Higher = Percentage of the population that has a bachelor's degree or higherMedian_household_income = Median household incomeSquare_Miles = Total area in square milesHouseholds, 2015 = Total number of households forecasted for 2015Population, 2015 = Total population forecated for 2015Households, 2020 = Total number of households forecasted for 2020Population, 2020 = Total population forecasted for 2020Households, 2025 = Total number of households forecasted for 2025Population, 2025 = Total population forecasted for 2025Households 2030 = Total number of households forecasted for 2030Population, 2030 = Total population forecasted for 2030Households, 2035 = Total number of households forecasted for 2035Population, 2035 = Total population forecasted for 2035Households, 2040 = Total number of households forecasted for 2040Population, 2040 = Total population forecasted for 2040Population Change, 2015-2040 = Forecasted population change between 2015 and 2040Household Change, 2015-2040 = Forecasted change in the number of households between 2015 and 2040Population Change per Square Mile, 2015-2040 = Forecasted population change per square mile between 2015 and 2040Population Change per Square Mile 2000-2010 = Actual change in population per square mile between 2000 and 2010Shape.STArea() = Total area in square feetSource: Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015For additional information, please visit the Atlanta Regional Commission at www.atlantaregional.com

1. Individual based models (IBMs) allow realistic and flexible modelling of ecological systems, but their parametrization with empirical data is statistically and computationally challenging. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) has been proposed as an efficient approach for inference with IBMs, but its applicability to data on natural populations has not been yet fully explored.
2. We construct an IBM for the metapopulation dynamics of a species inhabiting a fragmented patch network, and develop an ABC method for parametrization of the model. We consider several scenarios of data availability from count data to combination of mark-recapture and genetic data. We analyse both simulated and real data on white-starred robin (Pogonocichla stellata), a passerine bird living in montane forest environment in Kenya, and assess how the amount and type of data affect the estimates of model parameters and indicators of population state.
3. The indicators of the population state could be reliably estimated using the ABC method, but full parametrization was not achieved due to strong posterior correlations between model parameters. While the combination of the data types did not provide more accurate estimates for most of the indicators of population state or model parameters than the most informative data type (ringing data or genetic data) alone, the combined data allowed robust simultaneous estimation of all unknown quantities.
4. Our results show that ABC methods provide a powerful and flexible technique for parametrizing complex IBMs with multiple data sources, and assessing the dynamics of the population in a robust manner.

This datalayer displays the Urbanized Areas (UAs) for the state based on a January 1, 1990 ground condition. Note that the Census Bureau made significant changes in Urban/Rural designations for the Census 2000 data layers. Some of these delineations and definitions are explained below. 1990 Urban/Rural The U.S. Census Bureau defined urban for the 1990 census as consisting of all territory and population in urbanized areas (UAs) and in the urban portion of places with 2,500 or more people located outside of the UAs. The 1990 urban and rural classification applied to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 1990 Urbanized Areas A 1990 urbanized area (UA) consisted of at least one central place and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territory that together had a minimum population of 50,000 people. The densely settled surrounding territory generally consisted of an area with continuous residential development and a general overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. 1990 Extended Cities For the 1990 census, the U.S. Census Bureau distinguished the urban and rural population within incorporated places whose boundaries contained large, sparsely populated, or even unpopulated area. Under the 1990 criteria, an extended city had to contain either 25 percent of the total land area or at least 25 square miles with an overall population density lower than 100 people per square mile. Such pieces of territory had to cover at least 5 square miles. This low-density area was classified as rural and the other, more densely settled portion of the incorporated place was classified as urban. Unlike previous censuses where the U.S. Census Bureau defined extended cities only within UAs, for the 1990 census the U.S. Census Bureau applied the extended city criteria to qualifying incorporated places located outside UAs. 1990 Urbanized Area Codes Each 1990 UA was assigned a 4-digit numeric census code in alphabetical sequence on a nationwide basis based on the metropolitan area codes. Note that in Record Type C, the 1990 UA 4-digit numeric census code an d Census 2000 UA 5-digit numeric census code share a 5-character field. Because of this, the 1990 4-digit UA code, in Record Type C only, appears with a trailing blank. For Census 2000 the U.S. Census Bureau classifies as urban all territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas (UAs) and urban clusters (UCs). It delineates UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which generally consists of: - A cluster of one or more block groups or census blocks each of which has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile at the time - Surrounding block groups and census blocks each of which has a population density of at least 500 people per square mile at the time, and - Less densely settled blocks that form enclaves or indentations, or are used to connect discontiguous areas with qualifying densities. Rural consists of all territory, population, and housing units located outside of UAs and UCs. For Census 2000 this urban and rural classification applies to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States. Urbanized Areas (UAs) An urbanized area consists of densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people. The U.S. Census Bureau delineates UAs to provide a better separation of urban and rural territory, population, and housing in the vicinity of large places. For Census 2000, the UA criteria were extensively revised and the delineations were performed using a zero-based approach. Because of more stringent density requirements, some territory that was classified as urbanized for the 1990 census has been reclassified as rural. (Area that was part of a 1990 UA has not been automatically grandfathered into the 2000 UA.) In addition, some areas that were identified as UAs for the 1990 census have been reclassified as urban clusters. Urban Clusters (UCs) An urban cluster consists of densely settled territory that has at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000 people. The U.S. Census Bureau introduced the UC for Census 2000 to provide a more consistent and accurate measure of the population concentration in and around places. UCs are defined using the same criteria that are used to define UAs. UCs replace the provision in the 1990 and previous censuses that defined as urban only those places with 2,500 or more people located outside of urbanized areas. Urban Area Title and Code The title of each UA and UC may contain up to three incorporated place names, and will include the two-letter U.S. Postal Service abbreviation for each state into which the UA or UC extends. However, if the UA or UC does not contain an incorporated place, the urban area title will include the single name of a census designated place (CDP), minor civil division, or populated place recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System. Each UC and UA is assigned a 5-digit numeric code, based on a national alphabetical sequence of all urban area names. For the 1990 census, the U.S. Census Bureau assigned as four-digit UA code based on the metropolitan area codes. Urban Area Central Places A central place functions as the dominant center of an urban area. The U.S. Census Bureau identifies one or more central places for each UA or UC that contains a place. Any incorporated place or census designated place (CDP) that is in the title of the urban area is a central place of that UA or UC. In addition, any other incorporated place or CDP that has an urban population of 50,000 or an urban population of at least 2,500 people and is at least 2/3 the size of the largest place within the urban area also is a central place. Extended Places As a result of the UA and UC delineations, an incorporated place or census designated place (CDP) may be partially within and partially outside of a UA or UC. Any place that is split by a UA or UC is referred to as an extended place.

Abstract

The transition from socialism to a market economy has transformed the lives of many people. What are people's perceptions and attitudes to transition? What are the current attitudes to market reforms and political institutions?

To analyze these issues, the EBRD and the World Bank have jointly conducted the comprehensive, region-wide "Life in Transition Survey" (LiTS), which combines traditional household survey features with questions about respondents' attitudes and is carried out through two-stage sampling with a random selection of households and respondents.

The LiTS assesses the impact of transition on people through their personal and professional experiences during the first 15 years of transition. LiTS attempts to understand how these personal experiences of transition relate to people’s attitudes toward market and political reforms, as well as their priorities for the future.

The main objective of the LiTS was to build on existing studies to provide a comprehensive assessment of relationships among life satisfaction and living standards, poverty and inequality, trust in state institutions, satisfaction with public services, attitudes to a market economy and democracy and to provide valuable insights into how transition has affected the lives of people across a region comprising 16 countries in Central and Eastern Europe (“CEE”) and 11 in the Commonwealth of Independent State (“CIS”). Turkey and Mongolia were also included in the survey.

Geographic coverage

The LITS was to be implemented in the following 29 countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A total of 1,000 face-to-face household interviews per country were to be conducted, with adult (18 years and over) occupants and with no upper limit for age. The sample was to be nationally representative. The EBRD’s preferred procedure was a two stage sampling method, with census enumeration areas (CEA) as primary sampling units and households as secondary sampling units. To the extent possible, the EBRD wished the sampling procedure to apply no more than 2 stages.

The first stage of selection was to use as a sampling frame the list of CEA's generated by the most recent census. Ideally, 50 primary sampling units (PSU's) were to be selected from that sample frame, with probability proportional to size (PPS), using as a measure of size either the population, or the number of households.

The second sampling stage was to select households within each of the primary sampling units, using as a sampling frame a specially developed list of all households in each of the selected PSU's defined above. Households to be interviewed were to be selected from that list by systematic, equal probability sampling. Twenty households were to be selected in each of the 50 PSU's.

The individuals to be interviewed in each household were to be selected at random, within each of the selected households, with no substitution if possible.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAMPLE FRAME OF PSU’s

In each country we established the most recent sample frame of PSU’s which would best serve the purposes of the LITS sampling methodology. Details of the PSU sample frames in each country are shown in table 1 (page 10) of the survey report.

In the cases of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Uzbekistan, CEA’s were used. In Croatia we also used CEA’s but in this case, because the CEA’s were very small and we would not have been able to complete the targeted number of interviews within each PSU, we merged together adjoining CEA’s and constructed a sample of 1,732 Merged Enumeration Areas. The same was the case in Montenegro.

In Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic we used Eurostat’s NUTS area classification system.

[NOTE: The NUTS (from the French "Nomenclature des territoriales statistiques" or in English ("Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics"), is a uniform and consistent system that runs on five different NUTS levels and is widely used for EU surveys including the Eurobarometer (a comparable survey to the Life in Transition). As a hierarchical system, NUTS subdivides the territory of the country into a defined number of regions on NUTS 1 level (population 3-7 million), NUTS 2 level (800,000-3 million) and NUTS 3 level (150,000-800,000). At a more detailed level NUTS 3 is subdivided into smaller units (districts and municipalities). These are called "Local Administrative Units" (LAU). The LAU is further divided into upper LAU (LAU1 - formerly NUTS 4) and LAU 2 (formerly NUTS 5).]

Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Moldova and Romania used the electoral register as the basis for the PSU sample frame. In the other cases, the PSU sample frame was chosen using either local geographical or administrative and territorial classification systems. The total number of PSU sample frames per country varied from 182 in the case of Mongolia to over 48,000 in the case of Turkey. To ensure the safety of our fieldworkers, we excluded from the sample frame PSU’s territories (in countries such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Russia, etc) in which there was conflict and political instability. We have also excluded areas which were not easily accessible due to their terrain or were sparsely populated.

In the majority of cases, the source for this information was the national statistical body for the country in question, or the relevant central electoral committee. In establishing the sample frames and to the extent possible, we tried to maintain a uniform measure of size namely, the population aged 18 years and over which was of more pertinence to the LITS methodology. Where the PSU was based on CEA’s, the measure was usually the total population, whereas the electoral register provided data on the population aged 18 years old and above, the normal voting age in all sampled countries. Although the NUTS classification provided data on the total population, we filtered, where possible, the information and used as a measure of size the population aged 18 and above. The other classification systems used usually measure the total population of a country. However, in the case of Azerbaijan, which used CEA’s, and Slovenia, where a classification system based on administrative and territorial areas was employed, the measure of size was the number of households in each PSU.

The accuracy of the PSU information was dependent, to a large extent, on how recently the data has been collected. Where the data were collected recently then the information could be considered as relatively accurate. However, in some countries we believed that more recent information was available, but because the relevant authorities were not prepared to share this with us citing secrecy reasons, we had no alternative than to use less up to date data. In some countries the age of the data available makes the figures less certain. An obvious case in point is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the latest available figures date back to 1991, before the Balkan wars. The population figures available take no account of the casualties suffered among the civilian population, resulting displacement and subsequent migration of people.

Equally there have been cases where countries have experienced economic migration in recent years, as in the case of those countries that acceded to the European Union in May, 2004, such as Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states, or to other countries within the region e.g. Armenians to Russia, Albanians to Greece and Italy; the available figures may not accurately reflect this. And, as most economic migrants tend to be men, the actual proportion of females in a population was, in many cases, higher than the available statistics would suggest. People migration in recent years has also occurred from rural to urban areas in Albania and the majority of the Asian Republics, as well as in Mongolia on a continuous basis but in this case, because of the nomadic population of the country.

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Brief Overview

In broad terms the following sampling methodology was employed: · From the sample frame of PSU’s we selected 50 units · Within each selected PSU, we sampled 20 households, resulting in 1,000 interviews per country · Within each household we sampled 1 and sometimes 2 respondents The sampling procedures were designed to leave no free choice to the interviewers. Details on each of the above steps as well as country specific procedures adapted to suit the availability, depth and quality of the PSU information and local operational issues are described in the following sections.

Selection of PSU’s

The PSU’s of each country (all in electronic format) were sorted first into metropolitan, urban and rural areas (in that order), and within each of these categories by region/oblast/province in alphabetical order. This ensured a consistent sorting methodology across all countries and also that the randomness of the selection process could be supervised.

To select the 50 PSU’s from the sample frame of PSU’s, we employed implicit stratification and sampling was done with PPS. Implicit stratification ensured that the sample of PSU’s was spread across the primary categories of explicit variables and a better representation of the population, without actually stratifying the PSU’s thus, avoiding difficulties in calculating the sampling errors at a later stage. In brief, the PPS involved the

Contributing studies (in alphabetical order).