What is the size of the area of Canada near the U.S. border where most Canadians actually live?
I am wondering: what is the size of the area of Canada near the U.S. border where most Canadians actually live? I have read that 80% -90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. Border. However, I am unable to get any statistics for the size of that geographical area. On this map: canadainfolink.ca/chartten.htm the size of the areas of Canada where people actually live seems really tiny. I am only able to find population statistics for each province of Canada, which doesn’t help much, since just about everywhere outside of Ontario conains vast areas of uninhabitable tundra.
So, what is the geographical size of the area near the U.S. border where 90% of Canadians live?
I have looked all over the Wikipedia for Canada and the census and geographic data, and it seems nobody knows how large or small the inhabited area of Canada actually is. I’m really curious: damn near all Canadians live near the U.S. border,and damn near 100% are concentrated in population-dense urban areas together, but there are no statistics anywhere for the size of the landmass they occupy? Why?
I know that the population of Canada is about the same as the population of California, so it makes sense that the inhabited part of Canada wouldn’t need to be much geographically larger.
I just need to get a mental picture of the occupied landmass. I’m guessing it’s like California with a little Oregon on top. In a different shape, of course.
Exactly. Once you work out the downward facing surface area of the average person, then you just multiply that by the number of inhabitants and subtract the result from the total area.
I don’t need to use a density cutoff, I just want to know the size of the area near the U.S border where 90% of the population resides. Why doesn’t anybody measure this? It seems clearly deliniated enough on every population map I’ve seen. In everything I look at, it is the one statistic that is missing. It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out.
According to canadainfolink.ca/chart12.htm urban areas (which are pretty much the only areas that matter, since almost nobody lives outside of urban areas) only occupy .3% of the total land mass.
Maybe the area that is actually occupied by people is equivalent in size to California and a couple of New England states? California and Wyoming? (if you insist on counting the farmers)
Whay can’t this be an easy to find fact? I can’t be the first person who’s wanted to know. :s
[quote=“trebuchet”] I am only able to find population statistics for each province of Canada, which doesn’t help much, since just about everywhere outside of Ontario conains vast areas of uninhabitable tundra.
[/quote]
If you look at a map, you will see that Ontario is not to the south of the other provinces. I believe there is no tundra in any of the provinces, though of course there is in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
The province I’m from - Saskatchewan - is about the same size as California, and has a population of 1 million. Most of the people live in the south, near the US border, but the rest is not uninhabitable - we just don’t live there. The northern part has few roads, few towns, etc., but people could start going up there to live. It’s not much colder than the southern part.
[quote=“bababa”][quote=“trebuchet”] I am only able to find population statistics for each province of Canada, which doesn’t help much, since just about everywhere outside of Ontario conains vast areas of uninhabitable tundra.
[/quote]
If you look at a map, you will see that Ontario is not to the south of the other provinces. I believe there is no tundra in any of the provinces, though of course there is in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
The province I’m from - Saskatchewan - is about the same size as California, and has a population of 1 million. Most of the people live in the south, near the US border, but the rest is not uninhabitable - we just don’t live there. The northern part has few roads, few towns, etc., but people could start going up there to live. It’s not much colder than the southern part.[/quote]
Oof, I guess I didn’t word myself well. I meant to say, every province outside of Ontario appears to have huge areas that are uninhabited. Although, according to canadainfolink.ca/chartthree.htm, even Ontario, which has over a third of Canada’s entire population, only has a population density of 12.3 people per square kilometer, which is considered very lightly populated by world standards. So I guess I should have said every province in Canada has huge uninhabited areas.
How large is the area of Sasketchewan where people actually live? I noted it only contains 1.7 people per square km, how concentrated are they? You must have fantastic air quality.
Also, I thought this was interesting:79.4: Percentage of Canadians who lived in urban centres of 10,000 or more in 2001
51: Percentage of Canada’s population living in four major urban centres – the metropolitan Montreal area; the Golden Horseshoe in Southern Ontario; the Calgary-Edmonton corridor and British Columbia’s Lower Mainland.
So what’s the geographical area of these urban centers?
It’s amazing that almost the entire population of the country could fit into an area the size of New York and L.A. combined, or Tokyo say, plus a suburb.
[quote=“trebuchet”]It’s amazing that almost the entire population of the country could fit into an area the size of New York and L.A. combined, or Tokyo say, plus a suburb.
Must make for easy commuting.[/quote]
Statistics and how they are spun. Tsk. On the other hand, some 12+ million people live in Southern Ontario in an area akin in size to most any of the midwestern states of the U.S. Sure, Ontario has a very small population density overall: that’s due to the vast, empty expanse of northern Ontario. Imagine if Pennsylvania had the Dakotas and Montana and Wyoming tacked on top of it, and you get the idea. They and we are part of the same province in name only, and in a more rational world Ontario would have been split into northern and southern provinces a long time ago (though obviously there would be no financial incentive for those up north to do so).
I also agree that it’s peculiar that it’s difficult to find data on the more populated portions of Canada.
Yes, it’s not bad. After living in heavily pollutted Asian cities for 10 years, I went home. One day I was exclaiming over how blue the sky looked. My parents looked at me liked I was crazy, laughed and said “but the sky always looks like that.”
As for your question, I’d like to point out that this is an issue in every country. South Korea, for example, is heavily populated, but nevertheless 70% (I think I remember reading) of the land is considered uninhabitable, because it is mountains. The Koreans are pretty well concentrated into the lower parts of their country.
I don’t need to use a density cutoff, I just want to know the size of the area near the U.S border where 90% of the population resides. Why doesn’t anybody measure this? [/quote]
Sorry if I’m being dense, but I think you do need a density cutoff. I’m certain that all the maps that show the red blobby area, which you want to quantify, are made using a density cutoff. You could draw a zillion differently shaped areas that group 90% of the Canadian population, and a whole bunch of those would be near the US border. You could draw a line in the shape of the boarder and move it north until 90% of Canadians are south of it, but you’d end up counting wide open spaces and missing a few cities (e.g., Edmonton, Calgary).
If you’re really board, you could load the above image into Photoshop and do a histogram to count the number of red and beige pixels. The rest is basic math to get the area you’re looking for.
First, I am assuming that you mean the border with the 48 contiguous states and does not include the border with Alaska. If that’s the case, it’s quite simple to approximate the area that is within 100 miles of this border.
You can approximate this by just multiplying 100 miles by the straight line distance from Halifax, NS to Victoria, BC. This is obviously not exact, but it’ll get you pretty close. Just by looking at the map, I guesstimate that the error will be within 5%.
The straight line distance from Halifax to Victoria is 2785 miles. So the area that’s within 100 miles of the border is approximately 278,500 sq mi.
For comparative purposes (land area):
Within 100 mi of US border: ~278,500 sq mi
Canada: 3,510,096 sq mi
California: 155,973 sq mi
Oregon: 96,003 sq mi
Washington: 66,582 sq mi
So the area within 100 mi of the US border is about 90% of the three pacific states (CA,OR,WA) combined and ~8% of the land area of all of Canada.
