FYI cool map - 5 million Census Blocks with zero population

shedder

Active Member
nobody-lives-here.jpg

This map shows, in green where the nearly 5 million Census Blocks with zero population are located in the U.S. A Block is the smallest area unit used by the U.S. Census Bureau for tabulating statistics. As of the 2010 census, the United States consists of 11,078,300 Census Blocks. Of them, 4,871,270 blocks totaling 4.61 million square kilometers were reported to have no population living inside them. Despite having a population of more than 310 million people, 47 percent of the USA remains unoccupied. A single inhabitant is enough to omit a block from shading. This map is available as a print.

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.ca/2017/03/nobody-lives-here.html
 
nobody-lives-here.jpg

This map shows, in green where the nearly 5 million Census Blocks with zero population are located in the U.S. A Block is the smallest area unit used by the U.S. Census Bureau for tabulating statistics. As of the 2010 census, the United States consists of 11,078,300 Census Blocks. Of them, 4,871,270 blocks totaling 4.61 million square kilometers were reported to have no population living inside them. Despite having a population of more than 310 million people, 47 percent of the USA remains unoccupied. A single inhabitant is enough to omit a block from shading. This map is available as a print.

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.ca/2017/03/nobody-lives-here.html
Hard to fathom that nobody lives in that green area in southern Florida.
 
If accurate, that's a good feeling knowing there's so much open space left out there.
 
What size are these blocks? Maybe the map is deceiving but it doesn't make much sense. One spot appears basically over my farm. Another in the area of my buddy in north central PA. I've ridden thru most these areas of the country and while desolate, even places like the swamps of Fl or the deserts of NV have inhabitatants. Oddly the NF lands of my state that I know have no residents, don't show up green. Just doesn't add up. But even so, the fact that there is only 47% of land mass uninhabitated considering much of that is too hostile to live on, is kinda depressing to me. Cool map tho, thanks for showing.
 
Blocks. Like one city block. Might be 200 yards by 200 yards. Census blocks vary in physical size. In big cities a block might equal one high-rise apartment building. There are over 11-million census blocks in the United States. You do the math. Blocks are aggregated into block groups. Block groups are aggregated into census tracts. Show me census tracts with zero population. Then, you got my interest. A census tract you migjht equate to the physical area in a zip(code) + 4 size,. I got a better one for you. Habitat by 30 square meter blocks.

Look here:
https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/

It's frighteningly accurate in my part of the world. If you want to discuss it further, I'm available!
 
Blocks. Like one city block. Might be 200 yards by 200 yards. Census blocks vary in physical size. In big cities a block might equal one high-rise apartment building. There are over 11-million census blocks in the United States. You do the math. Blocks are aggregated into block groups. Block groups are aggregated into census tracts. Show me census tracts with zero population. Then, you got my interest. A census tract you migjht equate to the physical area in a zip(code) + 4 size,. I got a better one for you. Habitat by 30 square meter blocks.

Look here:
https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/

It's frighteningly accurate in my part of the world. If you want to discuss it further, I'm available!
It always amazes me what is online if you can find it.
 
What's really cool is how much diverse expertise is available in a forum like this one!

Ok. Cropscape. Here's my contention. If you are going to kick your game to the next level you need to understand habitat...not only on the land you hunt but also the habitat surrounding you. Cropscape is updated every year and that is INSANE! It's credible. Now, its accurate no more to about 85%. That's another discussion. I drew an area on the map that encompasses what I believe is the range for the deer I hunt. Some will come my way. Some won't, but it's a wonderful big picture. Here IS the big picture:
MyHabitat.jpg .

There ya' go - 10,800 acres with estimates of land cover type - deer habitat. Compare yours to mine. Then we can talk about your experiences compared to mine. I'd be very interest in what you see as the "ideal" mix of habitat types.
 
What is the short version of how the data is acquired?
Each pixel -- the dots that make a digital picture -- has a value. Let's say numbers from 1 to 256. Computers are really good at finding an individual numbers. We look at an image and intuitively know that's what a growing field of corn looks like. We find that all the pixels that make the picture of that field range in value from 23.6754 to 24.0089. Now we just go look for pixels in that range and call it corn. And, yes, it's a lot more complicated than that. But I'll stop!
 
I have a theory about why there are so many areas devoid of life. There are actually people living in many of those areas but they all got the long census form and decided not to fill it out. When census takers came out an knocked on their door they ignored them every time they came out.
According to a census supervisor I spoke with about issues on my road when they do not get the form back, they come out and knock on doors. If after a couple of tries they declare that the person does not actually live there.

On my road we have thirteen houses,, each one had a census form hung on the door, but they only received three back. So a census worker came out and knocked on every door. When the census worker submitted her report her supervisor did not believe that she actually did her job so came out himself to knock on doors.. I had to explain to him that only three of the houses were occupied year round, that seven of the thirteen were second homes, two were vacant retals, and one guy lives in Florida during the winter. Since the guy was in Florida they declared that he did not live there given he was not present during the actual census..
 
What's really cool is how much diverse expertise is available in a forum like this one!

Ok. Cropscape. Here's my contention. If you are going to kick your game to the next level you need to understand habitat...not only on the land you hunt but also the habitat surrounding you. Cropscape is updated every year and that is INSANE! It's credible. Now, its accurate no more to about 85%. That's another discussion. I drew an area on the map that encompasses what I believe is the range for the deer I hunt. Some will come my way. Some won't, but it's a wonderful big picture. Here IS the big picture:
View attachment 6555 .

There ya' go - 10,800 acres with estimates of land cover type - deer habitat. Compare yours to mine. Then we can talk about your experiences compared to mine. I'd be very interest in what you see as the "ideal" mix of habitat types.


I know this is old but this is awesome. I've been playing around with my areas. Very eye opening. I knew it was mainly hard woods, but didn't realize just how much in the grand scheme of things.
 
What's really cool is how much diverse expertise is available in a forum like this one!

Ok. Cropscape. Here's my contention. If you are going to kick your game to the next level you need to understand habitat...not only on the land you hunt but also the habitat surrounding you. Cropscape is updated every year and that is INSANE! It's credible. Now, its accurate no more to about 85%. That's another discussion. I drew an area on the map that encompasses what I believe is the range for the deer I hunt. Some will come my way. Some won't, but it's a wonderful big picture. Here IS the big picture:
View attachment 6555 .

There ya' go - 10,800 acres with estimates of land cover type - deer habitat. Compare yours to mine. Then we can talk about your experiences compared to mine. I'd be very interest in what you see as the "ideal" mix of habitat types.
I did my area a while back.....it's on my land tour thread. The data I pulled is for my entire county and not my specific area but you get the idea.....31.6% corn, 32% soybeans, 6.7% pasture......19.6% deciduous forest, 0% evergreen forest. Lots of row crops...not much cover for deer.
 
Picture1.jpg Slide1.JPG Slide2.JPG
I did my area a while back.....it's on my land tour thread. The data I pulled is for my entire county and not my specific area but you get the idea.....31.6% corn, 32% soybeans, 6.7% pasture......19.6% deciduous forest, 0% evergreen forest. Lots of row crops...not much cover for deer.

I did some analytics for Indiana. I used Cropscape estimated acres for every land use type for every county in Indiana and put it beside the 2016 Indiana deer kill. Is there a connection? You betcha'! But, I have a lot of questions, too many in fact.

Here are three graphs. No time to do all 200+1

By county, acres of corn and deer kill; acres of alfalfa and deer kill; acres of other hay (not alfalfa) and deer kill. You can't look at any of these in isolation. Each is related to the other land uses. I have lots of thoughts, and ideas, and questions. There's some optimum combination of habitat types that maximizes your management objectives. Given the data we have today, it's only a matter of time.....

But, long ago Mark Twain said, "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians!
 
View attachment 10169 View attachment 10170 View attachment 10171

I did some analytics for Indiana. I used Cropscape estimated acres for every land use type for every county in Indiana and put it beside the 2016 Indiana deer kill. Is there a connection? You betcha'! But, I have a lot of questions, too many in fact.

Here are three graphs. No time to do all 200+1

By county, acres of corn and deer kill; acres of alfalfa and deer kill; acres of other hay (not alfalfa) and deer kill. You can't look at any of these in isolation. Each is related to the other land uses. I have lots of thoughts, and ideas, and questions. There's some optimum combination of habitat types that maximizes your management objectives. Given the data we have today, it's only a matter of time.....

But, long ago Mark Twain said, "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians!
Graph #1 & 3 - this tells me that their isn't much "other hay" or alfalfa in Indiana.....which is because it's more than likely some other crops, either corn or soybeans. That is why the trends are rather flat.....and doesn't seem to have a significant impact on harvest levels.
graph #2 - Corn is huge in IN.....with lots of corn you tend to have less cover and true habitat for the deer and thus why the general trend is the less corn you have the more deer you kill....obviously to a point. We have square mile after square mile of corn fields....and as long as it stands it's cover and food for deer. However that is seasonal and come the late fall, winter and early spring.....there is some food there but the quality of cover is that of a wal-mart parking lot. Same goes and is even worse with a soybean field. This is why true carrying capacity is based on a year long basis of food, water and cover and not just the peaks and valleys as things change thru the year.

My general hunch says a 50/50 mix between forested cover (conifer and deciduous) and crop ground (corn, beans, hay crops) is just about as ideal as it's going to get. The other aspect of that is the mix of conifer and deciduous forest mix.....we don't have large expanses of conifer forest here and as such that may impact the habitat mix as well.....I don't know......
 
View attachment 10169 View attachment 10170 View attachment 10171

I did some analytics for Indiana. I used Cropscape estimated acres for every land use type for every county in Indiana and put it beside the 2016 Indiana deer kill. Is there a connection? You betcha'! But, I have a lot of questions, too many in fact.

Here are three graphs. No time to do all 200+1

By county, acres of corn and deer kill; acres of alfalfa and deer kill; acres of other hay (not alfalfa) and deer kill. You can't look at any of these in isolation. Each is related to the other land uses. I have lots of thoughts, and ideas, and questions. There's some optimum combination of habitat types that maximizes your management objectives. Given the data we have today, it's only a matter of time.....

But, long ago Mark Twain said, "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians!

There isn't enough Alfalfa in Indiana to influence anything one way or the other. High corn/bean prices several years back decimated habitat even more in high row crop areas. Excavators and dozers were killing trees at a record pace. Not just fence rows but 20+ acre blocks of timber in my area.
 
Most people don't understand when I try to tell them that I hunt in mountainous hard woods. Now I can actually show them. I love this tool.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (94).png
    Screenshot (94).png
    366.2 KB · Views: 0
The trick to this data vs what one might think from the article provided; a census calculates where you show your home address to be. "Where you live". It does not show where you have a cabin, second home, barn, etc.

No doubt there are people in these blocks on a daily basis, very visible, and very much being there. It is just not where they get their mail and pay their taxes and lay their head to rest a majority of the days of a year.
 
Back
Top