0
$\begingroup$

I've got a question regarding the modeling of populations.

So I am programming a population map that is geometrically amendable. For this, one can define an area and define the number of people living there.

I want to make this amendable to the point of where population definitions can overlap. It is quite obvious what to do when one defines an area (A1) with a specific number of people living there and then a second definition comes of an area (A2) inside that area: The surplus or dearth of people living in A2 (compared with how many people would live in A2 according to A1) is negated from people living in A1-A2.

But how can I handle the situation of partial overlaps of two defined areas?

Any help would be appreciated, even if you can just point me in the direction of how I could figure this out.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Your question and assumptions are not completely clear to me. But it seems like you may want to treat the map as piecewise-constant population density, defined by polygons? So expected population = density * area? Is your question about a new polygon that overlaps parts of existing ones? Or you find your existing map has overlaps between some polygons? $\endgroup$
    – GeoMatt22
    Commented May 3, 2017 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ I'm unsure as to how those two situations differ. Basically I am starting off with an undefined map, then populations get added with area information, like you stated. My question is related to what I should do when there exist definitions where these polygons overlap: i.e. What would the resulting represented population be on the map with overlapping polygons. $\endgroup$
    – Sapiens
    Commented May 3, 2017 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ I added some tags that may help to attract more knowledgeable CV members ("population" is very generic). $\endgroup$
    – GeoMatt22
    Commented May 3, 2017 at 21:35

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

If I understand what you want to do, it is not really a statistical issue per se. As I understand it, you have a map of piecewise-constant areal population density (i.e. $\frac{\text{people}}{\text{area}}$), defined by a set of polygons.

So consider a particular polygon $A$ with density $\rho$ and population $N=\rho|A|$, where $|A|$ is the polygon area.

So to add a new polygon $B$, you first compute $C=A\cap{B}$, $A'=A-C$, and $B'=B-C$. If you intend that the populations in the overlap area are independent*, then $N_C=(\rho_A+\rho_B)|C|$. You would then subtract these contributions from the residual polygons, i.e. $N_{A'}=N_A-\rho_A|C|$ and $N_{B'}=N_B-\rho_B|C|$. Note that the densities of the residual polygons are unchanged, $\rho_{A'}=\rho_A$, $\rho_{B'}=\rho_B$.

*This is one interpretation of the example you gave where $B=C$ so $B'=\emptyset$. If the overlap-populations are not independent, then this would be double counting! This is the part that is not clear to me from your description.


Update: Based on the clarification, the assumption $\rho_C=\rho_A+\rho_B$ is not appropriate.

So then the uncertainty all boils down to how you estimate $\rho_C$. (The assumption $\rho_{A'}=\rho_A$ and $\rho_{B'}=\rho_B$ still seems valid.)

I am not sure if there is a "correct" answer here (but hopefully someone chimes in, if there is!).

A reasonable approach is to model the density in the overlap as a weighted average of the component densities $$\rho_C\approx\frac{w_A\rho_A+w_B\rho_B}{w_A+w_B}$$

One possible approach for weighting could be based on the relative area of a component to the overlap, i.e. $$w_A=\frac{|C|}{|A|}\,,\,w_B=\frac{|C|}{|B|}$$ This captures the idea that if $|A|\gg|C|$ and $|B|\approx|C|$, then $\rho_C\approx\rho_B$, which seems close to your example qualitatively.

(Note that $|C|$ could be omitted from the weights here, as the constant factor will cancel out.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I see now what you mean. The problem is that I cannot make the assumption that these populations are independent. The information given is a population in an area, but one does not know how these are distributed. So the population information of one polygon could potentially be represented in another, but it does not necessarily have to be. This is why I am looking for a statistical answer. $\endgroup$
    – Sapiens
    Commented May 3, 2017 at 20:36
  • $\begingroup$ So the ambiguity should come down to how you want to estimate $\rho_C$. The rest of the procedure is independent of this. The simplest procedure would be to use a weighted average of $\rho_A$ and $\rho_B$. If you have no information about the relative uncertainty of the measurements, you could use an unweighted average. Alternatively you could perhaps use inverse area as a weight (this is saying that if e.g. $|A|\gg|C|$ but $|B|\approx|C|$ then $\rho_B$ is more representative). $\endgroup$
    – GeoMatt22
    Commented May 3, 2017 at 20:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.