Population Estimates. The population estimates of the sex- and race-specific, as well as sex- and ethnicity/race-specific groups in five-year age categories, were used as denominators in the formulation of rates. These population estimates of Illinois for all races, whites, blacks, and Asian/other races from 1986 through 2019, and for Hispanics, non-Hispanics, non-Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic black for 1990 through 2019 were obtained from both the intercensal and Vintage 2020 bridged-race post censal population estimates files. Population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin were produced by the United States Bureau of Census Population Estimates Program in collaboration with the National Center for Health Statistics, and with support from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through an interagency agreement. The population estimates incorporate intercensal (for 2000‐2009) and Vintage 2020 (for 2010‐2019) bridged single‐race estimates are derived from the original multiple race categories in the 2000 and 2010 Censuses (as specified in the 1997 Office of Management and Budget standards for the collection of data on race and ethnicity). The bridged single‐race estimates and a description of the methodology used to develop them appear on the National Center for Health Statistics website. The intercensal estimates provide an adjustment of previous population estimates based on the actual 2010 census results.7,8 Previous estimates utilized prior to the availability of the 2010 census data were prone to increased error as the time from the actual 2000 census increased. At the national level, estimates using both the 2000 census and the 2010 census are not very different from the previous estimates. However, there are more significant differences at the state and county levels that may result in changes to cancer incidence rates when one compares this report to earlier versions. Changes in rates also could be attributable to the addition of cases reported late. DEFINITIONS Cancer Site Coding for Incidence Data: Although the anatomic site and morphology for cancer cases diagnosed prior to 2001 were coded using the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology version 2 (ICD-O-2)5 and for cancer cases diagnosed in 2001 through 2009, the version 3 (ICD-O-3),6 all ICD-O-2 coded cases were converted to version 3 codes. The ISCR Web-based query data utilizes the ICD-O-3 recode with adjustment for WHO 2008 hematopoietic. SEER-NCI recommends this site recode scheme (Sit...
Population Estimates. The population estimates of the sex- and race-specific, as well as sex- and ethnicity/race- specific groups, in five-year age categories were used as denominators for rate calculations in these data. These population estimates of Illinois and Illinois counties for all races, whites, blacks and Asian/other races from 1986 through 2010 and for Hispanics and non-Hispanics for 1990 through 2010, were obtained from the SEER program based on United States Bureau of Census population estimates.2 They represent a modification of both the intercensal and Vintage 2011 annual time series of July 1 county population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin produced by the United States Bureau of Census Population Estimates Program (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/popest/index.html ), in collaboration with the National Center for Health Statistics, and with support from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through an interagency agreement. The population estimates incorporate new intercensal (for July 1, 2000‐2009) and Vintage 2011 (for July 1, 2010‐2011) bridged single‐race estimates that are derived from the original multiple race categories in the 2000 Census (as specified in the 1997 Office of Management and Budget standards for the collection of data on race and ethnicity (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/omb/inforeg_statpolicy/#dr ). The bridged single‐race estimates and a description of the methodology used to develop them appear on the National Center for Health Statistics website (xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm). The new intercensal estimates provide an adjustment of previous population estimates based on the actual 2010 Census results (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/popest/methodology/2000‐2010_Intercensal_Estimates_Methodology.pdf)3,4. Since the previous population estimates were extrapolated from the 2000 Census, they were prone to increased error as the time from the actual 2000 Census increased. At the national level, the new estimates are not very different from the previous estimates. However, there are more significant differences at the state and county levels that may result in changes to cancer incidence rates when one compares this report to earlier versions. Illinois population estimates from Vintage 2009 data for calendar year 2009 were compared to those produced using the modified intercensal estimates data for the same year. Use of methods in the intercensal estimates file resulted in a 0.9 percent decrease in Illinois’ total population. The method...
Population Estimates. Within six months from the effective date of the Cooperative Agreement, Colorado will provide to the Governance Committee an estimate by the Colorado State Demographer of the population of those portions of the following Colorado counties located within the South Platte River Basin, as of the effective date of the Cooperative Agreement, in the following regions:
Population Estimates. Population estimates are determined by the Nevada State Demographer and reported via the Nevada Department of Taxation’s most recent “Certified Population of Nevada Counties, Cities and Towns” document.
Population Estimates. Without an accurate estimate of population size it is not possible to determine the sustainability of current harvest levels as these two aspects are interdependent. Population estimates are usually based on surveys undertaken during the non-breeding season, or more rarely during the breeding season and only occasionally during the migration period. It is important that the season when a population estimation will be undertaken is agreed and an adequate sampling regime is implemented in all countries that encompass the seasonal range. One of the key factors in determining when surveys for a population estimation shall take place is the period when the population is distinct from other populations (i.e. populations that are delineated based on distinct breeding ranges are best monitored at the breeding grounds and populations delineated based on wintering ranges are best monitored at the wintering grounds). In some cases, counts during migration (at very restricted stop-over sites) might be more practical than surveys on either the breeding or the wintering grounds. Figure 1 provides an overview of the main methods that can be used for waterbird monitoring. For non-breeding birds, the International Waterbird Census (IWC) is used to estimate the population sizes of most waterbirds through the collation of data from national waterbird monitoring schemes. The extent to which the IWC can currently be used to estimate population sizes depends on the coverage of wetlands by the observer network, and its utility is different for different populations. Certain waterbird species whose populations are defined based on winter distribution cannot be well monitored during the general IWC counts because they use wetlands only for roosting (e.g. geese and swans) and spend most of the day on agricultural areas. These species can be either counted when flying in to or out from the roost by experienced observers positioned in a way around the roost so that most birds can be counted. Alternatively, special counting areas can be monitored on the feeding areas. Land based monitoring of sea ducks also usually underestimates their numbers and special aerial or ship-based surveys based on sound sampling design are needed (Komdeur et al. 1992). Aerial surveys are also the most reliable method to monitor waterbirds on large floodplains and semi-arid regions with ephemeral waterbodies in Africa where waterbird distribution is highly dependent on the extent of floods and local rainfal...
Population Estimates. 5.1 Absolute abundance The bottlenose dolphin population usually is considered as the smallest in comparison with other cetacean populations in the Black Sea (Silantyev, 1903; Xxxxxx, 1940; Xxxxxxxxxxx, 1956; Xxxxxxx et al., 1976). In the 20th century the population has been reduced by mass direct killing managed for the dolphin-processing industry, however total number of taken animals remains unknown. Until now, there are no reliable scientific data on this population abundance. The estimates carried out in the former USSR in 1967-1974 (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 1974) and in Turkey in 1987 (Xxxxxxxxx et al., 1989) were discredited by the IWC Scientific Committee due to methodological blunders committed in observation schemes and statistic interpretation (Xxxxx, 1982; Xxxxxxxxx, 1991; Xxxxxxxx et al., 1992; IWC, 1992). The later Soviet estimates, which were produced in 1975-1993 (Xxxxxxxx et al., 1978; Xxxxxx et al., 1986; Xxxxxxx et al., 1990; Xxxxxxxx, 1996 a; Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx, 1997) and not yet reviewed by the IWC Scientific Committee, demonstrate similar mistakes, namely the incorrect survey design and erroneous data treatment. Therefore, existent figures on absolute abundance of Black Sea bottlenose dolphin population (Table 3) have mainly historical significance (as published notes of how it was done), but cannot be recommended as the basic data for further comparisons and conclusions. Table 3 – Estimated absolute abundance of Black Sea bottlenose dolphin population Period Abundance (no. of animals) Reference Early 20th century 30,000-50,000 Bushuyev (2000) 1967-1974 85,000 IWC (1992) after Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (1974) 1973 31,000 Xxxxxx (1975) 1976 56,000 Mikhalev et al. (1978) July 1983 < 5,000-10,000 after Xxxxxx et al. (1986)* April and July 1987 67,257 after Xxxxxxxxx et al. (1989)** 1985-1987 7,000±3,000 Sokolov et al. (1990); Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx (1997) * Between 55,000 and 60,000 cetaceans, including nearly 50,000 common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), were estimated for the entire Black Sea area. Consequently, the overall number of bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises did not exceed 5,000-10,000 animals. ** A total of 454,440 individuals was estimated for all three Black Sea cetacean populations (D. delphis,
