Table 3 Description of factors and typical and atypical regions
From: An ecological study of regional variation in work injuries among young workers
Factor | Description | Typical regions | Atypical regions |
|---|---|---|---|
One | low population density, low youth education, low spending on household expenses, high household ownership and low population mobility | 1. Rainy river district 2. Bruce county 3. Kenora district 4. Manitoulin and Sudbury districts | 1. Toronto division 2. Peel Region 3. Ottawa division 4. Frontenac county 5. York region |
Two | High union membership, high youth unemployment, low household ownership, low literacy test completion, high single mother families, high aboriginal population | 1. Kenora district 2. Cochrane district 3. Nipissing district 4. Thunder Bay district | 1. York region 2. Halton region 3. Huron county 4. Dufferin county 5. Perth county |
Three | High earnings, high adult education, high value of dwellings, young population, high population growth | 1. York region 2. Halton region 3. Peel region 4. Ottawa division 5. Durham region | 1. Timiskaming district 2. Haliburton & Parry Sound districts 3. Manitoulin & Sudbury districts 4. Algoma district |
Four | High number of small workplaces, high spending on household expenses | 1. Manitoulin & Sudbury districts 2. Muskoka district 3. Haliburton & Parry Sound districts 4. Dufferin county | 1. Halton region 2. Durham region 3. Frontenac county 4. Essex county 5. Peel region |