2006 census mria may 24, 2007 anil arora. 2 pressures to change for 2006 privacy issues (local...
TRANSCRIPT
2006 Census
MRIA
May 24, 2007
Anil Arora
2
Pressures to change for 2006
• Privacy issues (local enumerator)• CCRA automation efforts and impact on
capture of Census data• Internet option (GOL and public
expectations)• Recruiting large decentralized workforce• Timeliness improvements• Environment
3
Lessons learned
• Recruitment
• Procurement
• Clustering of responses on Census Day
• Deadline
• Co-ordination of communications initiatives with collection activities
• Confidentiality and security
4
Response Distribution by Mode of Response
Mode of ResponseResponse
%
Mail 63.1
Internet 18.5
Field NRFU 16.2
CATI 2.2
5
Internet Penetration
Internet Home Penetration Rates(Household Internet Use Survey)
0%
10%20%
30%40%
50%
60%70%
80%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
6
Internet Returns
Daily Internet Response
0
50,000100,000
150,000
200,000250,000
300,000
2-May 16-May 30-May 13-Jun 27-Jun 11-Jul 25-Jul 8-Aug 22-Aug
7
Internet Response byProvince/Territory
Internet Response Rates
18.5
16.014.8
17.016.0 15.6
20.1
15.0 15.0
21.420.1 20.5
13.6
0.00
5
10
15
20
25
% o
f re
sp
on
ses
8
Household size
ResonseChannel Single 2 to 4 5 or more
CHL / Field 22.5% 16.1% 20.1%Internet 13.5% 19.5% 26.0%Mail Back 63.1% 63.5% 50.8%Unknown 0.8% 0.9% 3.2%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
9
Internet Response by Type of Questionnaire
Type of Questionnaire Internet
Short 2A 79.6
Long 2B 20.4
10
Initial Quality
Rejection Rate by Mode of Response and Type of Questionnaire
Mode of Response
Short 2A
(%)
Long 2B
(%)
Mail 5.6 39.1
Internet 2.5 5.7
11
Response Comparison (%)
Mode of Response
Push Sample
(20,000)
Control Sample
(20,000)
Total Census
(≈ 11.9M)
Mail 3.7 61.1 63.1
Internet 61.8 23.8 18.3
Field NRFU 26.8 13.0 16.3
CATI 7.7 2.1 2.3
12
3 follow-up surveys
Conducted in the summer and fall of 2006
• to evaluate the Internet collection method
• to help improve this option for future censuses.
• understand the Internet response process without a paper questionnaire,
• evaluate the satisfaction of those who used the online version
13
Results
• Reaction to the letter positive (70%)
• Most respondents had high speed (90%)
• 21% had some difficulties
• 82% used Internet every day
Of those respondents who did not use internet
• 10% were not aware of the option
• 14% lack of skill/not interested/no computer
Population and Dwelling Counts
March 13, 2007
15
Higher population growth than in previous intercensal period
13.4%
4.0%
5.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
1956 to1961
1961 to1966
1966 to1971
1971 to1976
1976 to1981
1981 to1986
1986 to1991
1991 to1996
1996 to2001
2001 to2006
16
Fastest growing population among G8 countries - 2001 to 2006
-2.4%
0.0%
0.4%
1.9%
3.1%
3.1%
5.0%
5.4%
-3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Russia
Germany
Japan
United Kingdom
France
Italy
United States
Canada
Russia
17
Canada’s population has nearly doubled in 50 years
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Mil
lio
ns 31,612,897
16,080,791
18
Higher population growth in most provinces and territories
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T. Nvt.
1996 to 2001
2001 to 2006
Canada 2001 to 2006
19
Ontario
• Population growth in Ontario represents half the population increase in Canada
• Other than Alberta, Ontario is the only province with a population growth (6.6%) higher than the national average (5.4%)
• Similar population growth compared to the previous intercensal periods
20
Urbanization continues
Proportion of Canadians living in urban areas, 1901 to 2006
37
4549
54 54
6267
74 76 76 78 80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006
%
21
Majority of Canada’s population growth took place in CMAs
• The 33 census metropolitan areas (CMAs) now house more than two-thirds (68%) of Canadians
• Population growth in CMAs is higher than the national average (6.9% versus 5.4%)
• Six CMAs of one million or more inhabitants: Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa - Gatineau, Calgary and Edmonton
22
Six of the 15 fastest growing CMAs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Barrie
Calga
ry
Oshaw
a
Edmont
on
Kelow
na
Toron
to
K itche
ner
Guelph
Abbots
ford
Monc
ton
Vancou
ver
Sherb
rook
e
Ottaw
a - G
atineau
Victo
ria
Brant
ford
Mont
réal
Peter
borou
gh
Lond
on
Win
dsor
St. J oh
n's
Hamilt
on
Québec
Halifax
K ingst
on
Saska
toon
St. Cat
harin
es - N
iaga
ra
Trois
-Riv
ière
s
Win
nipe
g
Greate
r / G
rand
Sud
bury
Regin
a
Thund
er Bay
Saint
Joh
n
Sague
nay
Population growth between 2001 and 2006
Canada
23
Urban spread in Canada
• Population of metropolitan areas continue to spread • Within CMAs, central municipalities grow more slowly (4.2%) than
peripheral municipalities (11.1%)
24
Mid-size urban centres (census agglomerations)
• 111 mid-size urban centres (CAs) in Canada• Home to 4.1 million Canadians• Lower population growth rate than the national
average (4.0% versus 5.4%)• Seven out of the top eight fastest growing CAs
are located in Alberta• The five fastest declining CAs are located in
northern British Columbia
25
Small towns and rural Canada
• Home to 6 million Canadians• Slower population growth than the national
average (1.0% versus 5.4%)• Higher population growth for rural regions located
close to a metropolitan area (4.7%)• Population of remote rural areas is nearly stable
(-0.1%)
26
2006 Census releases
• July 17, 2007: Age and sex• September 12, 2007: Marital status, families, households,
housing• December 4, 2007: Languages, mobility, migration,
immigration, citizenship• January 15, 2008: Aboriginal peoples• March 4, 2008: Labour, place of work, commuting to work,
education, language • April 2, 2008: Ethnic origin, visible minorities • May 1, 2008: Income, earnings, shelter costs