This document proposes a new global region-builder geo-code system to enable regional analysis across jurisdictions. The current Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes from the 1960s limit regional analysis by alphabetically coding states and counties. The proposed system addresses this by assigning numeric codes to increasingly larger geographic regions based on proximity, from continents down to counties. It includes examples applying the codes to analyze population changes in Virginia regions and densities excluding urban areas. The goal is to engage researchers and practitioners to develop this system for multi-regional data analysis and comparison over time.

1. Global Region-builder Geo-Code Prototype ©
by Thomas J. Christoffel, AICP, MeRSA
Regional Intelligence – Regional Communities, LLC
57th Annual North American meetings of the Regional Science Association
International
Denver, Colorado
November 13, 2010

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.
The Washington, D.C. Metro area is an
example.

5. Metropolitan
Washington Council of
Governments (COG)
(Yellow)
MSAs & CMSAs 2010
(Grey)
Non-metro (Green)

6. Although Semi-autonomous Regions,
States are too big for regional analysis

7. Counties, 3,034 of them, the original substate district & basic
Census FIPS coded unit, are too small for regional analysis.
Note: 35,937 sub-county governments - 19,431 municipal & 16,506 township

8. Most analysis focuses on the
Metropolitan Areas – MSAs

9. 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.

10. MSA focus leaves out Non-Metro Counties

11. Alternative?
Most states established some form of multi-county
regional councils in the 1960’s & 1970’s which
covered all counties, metro or non-metro.
Many, like Virginia, used sub-state districts as
regions for data aggregation and use by other State
agencies.
The region number or letter could be used like the
Federal FIPS code for sorting and aggregating data
by region.
These regions also have organized regional
governmental units using the data for regional
planning and some were capable of regional action.
Such regions “work” for their local governments

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

13. Using the Various Sub-State Districts Nationally produces a Map
Something Like This:
Regional Councils Are Emerging Regional Communities; Regions that work

14. Need for Multi-regional Analysis Emerges
In the 1990’s, commerce, industry and even
workforce commuting expanded along Interstate and
Primary routes, showing connections between MSAs
and a broad range of non-metropolitan counties,
often in adjoining states.
To understand these relationships, there was clear
need for multi-regional analysis, but no data sets
supported this.
The author began work in 1998 to promote the
development of such a system, submitting a
comment to the U.S. Census Bureau February 12,
1999 relative to: Alternative Approaches to Defining
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas.

15. Conclusion: Global Geo-code system needed
Continued work on the issue and a review of other
national and international systems led to the conclusion
that a new global geo-code system design was needed.
The goal of the system is to cover all geographic territory
of our local planet within a ten base system. There are
different systems of accounting for continents. These can
be reviewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents
The intent of the geo-codes is to group political entities
based on relative proximity.
The purpose of this paper is to present the prototype
design for the purpose of further consideration by the
user communities.

16. Geo-codes Using North to South, East to
West – NSEW – Numbering
0000 Earth
0900 Arctic Ocean
1000 Europe
2000 Africa
3000 Atlantic Ocean
4000 Antarctica
5000 Americas
6000 Pacific Ocean
7000 Oceana
8000 Asia
Map source: http://www.clker.com/clipart-13513.html
9000 Indian Ocean

17. Political-Geographic Area Groups
Using the Sector and Region names utilized
by the United Nations,
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m4
9regin.htm, the next levels of the global geo-
code prototype system was developed.
Country names and relationships were
matched to those on the Statoids website
maintained by Gwilliam Law
http://www.statoids.com/wab.html
North American example -

18. Geo-codes – Americas UN Northern
Grouping of Political-Geographic Areas
5 0 00 Americas 5000
Code
Code Assigned Base
Sector Assigned To UN UN Political-Geographic Global
Code For UN Political Name Geo-
Northern Geographic Code
Grouping Name
5 1 10 Greenland 5110
5 1 20 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 5120
5 1 30 Canada 5130
5 1 40 United States of America 5140
5 1 50 Bermuda 5150
United States Minor 5160
5 1 60 Outlying Islands

19. United States Country Geo-code - 5140
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 that follow:

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. In-State Example: Virginia Alphabetic by
County and City – Charles City County

25. Charles City County with its Region –
Richmond Regional Planning District

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

27. % change – provides a different picture.

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

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

30. All Global Geo-code Prototype:
0000 Earth; 0900 Arctic Ocean; 1000 Europe

31. 2000 Africa

32. 3000 Atlantic
Ocean
4000 Antarctica
5000 Americas

33. 6000 Pacific
Ocean
7000 Oceana
9000 Indian
Ocean

34. 8000 Asia

35. Goals of this Presentation
Report on this effort to researchers and
practitioners.
Find people who may be interested in this project
for analysis of other multi-jurisdictional regions.
What can the Geo-codes be used for? see
Data analysis and Topic Tags – see Delicious Tags
for geography and subject at I.see.regions.work
http://delicious.com/I.see.regions.work and
Regional Community Development News
http://regional-communities.blogspot.com/
Thank you!

36. Regional Intelligence – Regional Communities, LLC
Tom (Thomas J.) Christoffel, AICP, MeRSA, 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