IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/20-05.html

Validating Abstract Representations of Spatial Population Data while considering Disclosure Avoidance

Author

Listed:
  • James Gaboardi

Abstract

This paper furthers a research agenda for modeling populations along spatial networks and expands upon an empirical analysis to a full U.S. county (Gaboardi, 2019, Ch. 1,2). Specific foci are the necessity of, and methods for, validating and benchmarking spatial data when conducting social science research with aggregated and ambiguous population representations. In order to promote the validation of publicly-available data, access to highly-restricted census microdata was requested, and granted, in order to determine the levels of accuracy and error associated with a network-based population modeling framework. Primary findings reinforce the utility of a novel network allocation method—populated polygons to networks (pp2n) in terms of accuracy, computational complexity, and real runtime (Gaboardi, 2019, Ch. 2). Also, a pseudo-benchmark dataset’s performance against the true census microdata shows promise in modeling populations along networks.

Suggested Citation

  • James Gaboardi, 2020. "Validating Abstract Representations of Spatial Population Data while considering Disclosure Avoidance," Working Papers 20-05, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:20-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2020/CES-WP-20-05.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M. Abowd & Ian M. Schmutte, 2017. "Revisiting the Economics of Privacy: Population Statistics and Confidentiality Protection as Public Goods," Working Papers 17-37, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Steven Ruggles & Catherine Fitch & Diana Magnuson & Jonathan Schroeder, 2019. "Differential Privacy and Census Data: Implications for Social and Economic Research," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 109, pages 403-408, May.
    3. Amatulli, Giuseppe & Peréz-Cabello, Fernando & de la Riva, Juan, 2007. "Mapping lightning/human-caused wildfires occurrence under ignition point location uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 321-333.
    4. Seth E Spielman & David C Folch, 2015. "Reducing Uncertainty in the American Community Survey through Data-Driven Regionalization," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Jonathan R. Bradley & Christopher K. Wikle & Scott H. Holan, 2017. "Regionalization of multiscale spatial processes by using a criterion for spatial aggregation error," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(3), pages 815-832, June.
    6. James Gaboardi, 2020. "Validating Abstract Representations of Spatial Population Data while considering Disclosure Avoidance," Working Papers 20-5, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. Derek S. Young & Andrew M. Raim & Nancy R. Johnson, 2017. "Zero-inflated modelling for characterizing coverage errors of extracts from the US Census Bureau's Master Address File," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 73-97, January.
    8. David C. Folch & Daniel Arribas-Bel & Julia Koschinsky & Seth E. Spielman, 2016. "Spatial Variation in the Quality of American Community Survey Estimates," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 53(5), pages 1535-1554, October.
    9. Seth E. Spielman & Alex Singleton, 2015. "Studying Neighborhoods Using Uncertain Data from the American Community Survey: A Contextual Approach," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 105(5), pages 1003-1025, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Gaboardi, 2020. "Validating Abstract Representations of Spatial Population Data while considering Disclosure Avoidance," Working Papers 20-5, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Daniel H. Weinberg & John M. Abowd & Robert F. Belli & Noel Cressie & David C. Folch & Scott H. Holan & Margaret C. Levenstein & Kristen M. Olson & Jerome P. Reiter & Matthew D. Shapiro & Jolene Smyth, 2017. "Effects of a Government-Academic Partnership: Has the NSF-Census Bureau Research Network Helped Improve the U.S. Statistical System?," Working Papers 17-59r, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. David C. Folch & Seth Spielman & Molly Graber, 2023. "The Impact of Covariance on American Community Survey Margins of Error: Computational Alternatives," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(4), pages 1-23, August.
    4. Raoul S. Liévanos & Amy Lubitow & Julius Alexander McGee, 2019. "Misrecognition in a Sustainability Capital: Race, Representation, and Transportation Survey Response Rates in the Portland Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    5. Arthur Acolin & Ari Decter-Frain & Matthew Hall, 2022. "Small-area estimates from consumer trace data," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 47(27), pages 843-882.
    6. Kuter, Semih & Usul, Nurunnisa & Kuter, Nazan, 2011. "Bandwidth determination for kernel density analysis of wildfire events at forest sub-district scale," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(17), pages 3033-3040.
    7. John M. Abowd & Ian M. Schmutte & William Sexton & Lars Vilhuber, 2019. "Suboptimal Provision of Privacy and Statistical Accuracy When They are Public Goods," Papers 1906.09353, arXiv.org.
    8. Neil Lee & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2016. "Is There Trickle-Down from Tech? Poverty, Employment, and the High-Technology Multiplier in U.S. Cities," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 106(5), pages 1114-1134, September.
    9. Lekkas, Peter & Howard, Natasha J & Stankov, Ivana & daniel, mark & Paquet, Catherine, 2019. "A Longitudinal Typology of Neighbourhood-level Social Fragmentation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," SocArXiv 56x9c, Center for Open Science.
    10. Evan S. Totty & Thor Watson, 2026. "Privacy Protection and Accuracy: What Do We Know? Do We Know Things?? Let’s Find Out!," NBER Chapters, in: Data Privacy Protection and the Conduct of Applied Research: Methods, Approaches and New Findings, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Matthew H. E. M. Browning & Alessandro Rigolon, 2018. "Do Income, Race and Ethnicity, and Sprawl Influence the Greenspace-Human Health Link in City-Level Analyses? Findings from 496 Cities in the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, July.
    12. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Neil Lee, 2020. "Hipsters vs. Geeks? Creative workers, STEM and innovation in US cities," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2021, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Apr 2020.
    13. Steven Ruggles & Diana L. Magnuson, 2023. "“It's None of Their Damn Business”: Privacy and Disclosure Control in the U.S. Census, 1790–2020," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 49(3), pages 651-679, September.
    14. Juliana A. Maantay & Andrew R. Maroko, 2018. "Brownfields to Greenfields: Environmental Justice Versus Environmental Gentrification," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Oliver E. J. Wing & William Lehman & Paul D. Bates & Christopher C. Sampson & Niall Quinn & Andrew M. Smith & Jeffrey C. Neal & Jeremy R. Porter & Carolyn Kousky, 2022. "Inequitable patterns of US flood risk in the Anthropocene," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 12(2), pages 156-162, February.
    16. Harrison Quick & Scott H. Holan & Christopher K. Wikle, 2018. "Generating partially synthetic geocoded public use data with decreased disclosure risk by using differential smoothing," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(3), pages 649-661, June.
    17. Neil Lee & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2021. "Entrepreneurship and the fight against poverty in US cities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(1), pages 31-52, February.
    18. Livio Finos & Fortunato Pesarin, 2020. "On zero-inflated permutation testing and some related problems," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2157-2174, October.
    19. Sara E. Grineski & Timothy W. Collins & Ricardo Rubio, 2019. "Distributional Environmental Injustices for a Minority Group without Minority Status: Arab Americans and Residential Exposure to Carcinogenic Air Pollution in the US," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-16, December.
    20. J. Tom Mueller & Alexis R. Santos-Lozada, 2022. "The 2020 US Census Differential Privacy Method Introduces Disproportionate Discrepancies for Rural and Non-White Populations," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(4), pages 1417-1430, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:20-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.