4 ms·
Sure, and if you only have county-level metrics, then you can only perform analysis at the county level. But then you must be aware of the skew that represents
by kodablah 7y ago
Sure, and if you only have county-level metrics, then you can only perform analysis at the county level. But then you must be aware of the skew that represents in data, and make that clear. Presenting county-by-county analysis as definitive representations of flow, not accounting for physical size, does not give an accurate picture of real flow. Only to population centers and/or large counties, but large flow may be happening to many adjacent, small physical counties and this type of analysis of "core counties" would never know.
- dredmorbius 7y agoA serendipitous advantage of the cookie-cutter rectangular definition of many ag states' county boundaries is that regions are fairly strongly normalised for land area. And ag productivity, for some strange reason, correlates strongly to area rather than population, all else equal. California would be an exception, though the distortions aren't particularly exceptional. A rough eyeballing of the county-based graph (lower in my Mastodon reshare) suggests if anything that larger counties are less rather than more represented in high-significance areas. Most large counties tend to be both exceptionally sparsely populated, and agriculturally marginal. San Bernardino County, in California, is a notable exception.