This document proposes a new geospatial framework for regional analysis in the United States based on sub-state districts/regional councils. It notes limitations of existing frameworks like Metropolitan Statistical Areas and FIPS codes. The new framework assigns unique geo-codes to each state and region based on Census Bureau regions and divisions. This allows comparison of changes in regions over time and across state lines. It shows how regional councils could serve as standard units of analysis for measuring multi-jurisdictional regional trends and characteristics. The goal is to increase use of regional councils in research and practice and for redistricting based on regional communities.

1. The Sub-State District/Regional Council
as a Geospatial Unit of Analytical Geography
for the United States
by Thomas J. Christoffel, AICP, FeRSA
Regional Intelligence – Regional Communities, LLC
50th Annual meeting of the
Southern Regional Science Association
New Orleans, Louisiana
March 25, 2011

2. The Regional Analysis Problem
Regional analysis in the United States is limited by
the Federal Information Processing Standards
(FIPS) codes created in the 1960’s.
State FIPS codes were assigned alphabetically for
states beginning with 01 for Alabama.
Within states, counties and comparable
geographies were also done alphabetically beginning
with 01 then 03 – new county option.
Tyranny of the Alphabet – Easy to find individual
state or county data in a list, but not to relate one
jurisdiction to another in a table or spreadsheet.

3. Example: FIPS Code and Spatial
Relationships for States Compared

4. Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Regional aggregation was done in the
establishment of Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSA), which were coded
separately.
Many of these regions matched the
geography of the Metropolitan Councils
of Government of that time.
That is no longer true. And the non-
metro counties are out in the analytic
cold.

5. MSA Limitations
The relationships which define MSAs, primarily
workforce commuting, led to their widening over
time to include more jurisdictions.
Since the geographic base changes over time,
there is no option for long term analysis of
change on a standard multi-jurisdictional regional
geography.
MSA totals obscure differences within the
underlying territory, which has lead to faulty
analysis.
Development of Micropolitan Areas is not a
solution.

6. Virginia Planning Districts – Region Numbers
Have Worked Like a FIPS Code Since 1968

7. United States Country Geo-code – 5140
In Global Geo-code Proposal
Next step is a geo-code for each State.
The U.S. Census Bureau has defined
regions and divisions.
This framework was used to develop
NSEW State geo-codes beginning in the
Northeast and moving south.

9. State Geo-codes – USA - What does this accomplish?
Difference – Maine is 01 compared to FIPS 23; Alabama is
21 compared to 01
Division Geo-code Region/State Abr. FIPS
1. New England Northeast/
01 Maine ME 23
02 New Hampshire NH 33
03 Vermont VT 50
04 Massachusetts MA 25
05 Rhode Island RI 44
06 Connecticut CT 09
2. Middle Atlantic Northeast/
07 New York NY 36
08 New Jersey NJ 34
09 Pennsylvania PA 42
3. South Atlantic South/
10 Delaware DE 10
11 Maryland MD 24
12 District of Columbia DC 11
13 Virginia VA 51
14 West Virginia WV 54
15 North Carolina NC 37
16 South Carolina SC 45
17 Georgia GA 13
18 Florida FL 12
4. East South
Central South/
19 Kentucky KY 21
20 Tennessee TN 47
21 Alabama AL 01
22 Mississippi MS 28

10. Division Geo-code Region/State Abr. FIPS
5. West South
Central South/
23 Louisiana LA 22
24 Arkansas AR 05
25 Oklahoma OK 40
26 Texas TX 48
6. East North Central Midwest/
27 Michigan MI 26
28 Ohio OH 39
29 Indiana IN 18
30 Illinois IL 17
31 Wisconsin WI 55
7. West North
Central Midwest/
32 Minnesota MN 27
33 North Dakota ND 38
34 South Dakota SD 46
35 Iowa IA 19
36 Nebraska NE 31
37 Missouri MO 29
38 Kansas KS 20
8. Mountain West/
39 Montana MT 30
40 Wyoming WY 56
41 Idaho ID 16
42 Nevada NV 32
43 Utah UT 49
44 Colorado CO 08
45 New Mexico NM 35
46 Arizona AZ 04
9. Pacific West/
47 Alaska AK 02
48 Washington WA 53
49 Oregon OR 41
50 California CA 06
51 Hawaii HI 15

11. Quick look at Substate Districts/RCs
01. Maine 02. New Hampshire

12. 03. Vermont 04. Massachusetts

13. 05. Rhode Island 06. Connecticut

14. 07. New York 08. New Jersey

15. 09. Pennsylvania 10. Delaware

16. 11. Maryland 12. District of Columbia

17. 13. Virginia 14. West Virginia

18. 15. North Carolina 16. South Carolina

19. 17. Georgia 18. Florida

20. 19. Kentucky 20. Tennessee

21. 21. Alabama 22. Mississippi

22. 23. Louisiana 24. Arkansas

23. 25. Oklahoma 26. Texas

24. 27. Michigan 28. Ohio

25. 29. Indiana
RC gaps (left) filled by MPO (right))

26. 30. Illinois
Looks complex (left) but general alignment to DOT Districts (right)

27. 31. Wisconsin 32. Minnesota

28. 33. North Dakota 34. South Dakota

29. 35. Iowa 36. Nebraska

30. 37. Missouri 38. Kansas

31. 39. Montana 40. Wyoming

32. 41. Idaho 42. Nevada

33. 43. Utah 44. Colorado

34. 45. New Mexico 46. Arizona

35. 47. Alaska 48. Washington

36. 49. Oregon 50. California

37. 51. Hawaii U.S. All at once

38. How do geo-codes enable region-building for analysis?
Example: Mid-Atlantic Region with Regional Councils as the Unit of
Analysis State Codes 5140-08 NJ to 5140-14 WV

39. Mid-Atlantic Change by Regional Council Region – Richmond
Region in its Mid-Atlantic Context, not just Virginia

40. % change – provides a different picture.

41. Loss of countryside –
viewshed? Region
land area less
Federal and State
Lands – including
Urban Areas

42. Overall density in 2005 drops when Urban areas pulled out – with
time series we could see better the sprawls as build out occurs.

43. Goals of this Presentation
The purpose of this paper is to:
Present this effort to researchers and practitioners
To find people who may be interested in this project
for analysis of other multi-jurisdictional regions in state
or multi-state geographies and
To increase visibility of regional council geography and
organizations in the U.S. As geo-political regions, they
can also be used as regional communities to be taken
into account for redistricting for State Houses and
Congressional Districts.
Thank you!

44. Regional Intelligence – Regional Communities, LLC
Tom (Thomas J.) Christoffel, AICP, FeRSA, Editor
Regional Community Development News
P.O. Box 1444
Front Royal, Virginia (VA 22630), USA
E-mail: Tom.Christoffel@gmail.com
Phone or fax: 1-540-635-8582
Web: http://ri-rc.com
The “Regions Work” Initiative © 1998