This statistic shows the top 25 cities in the United States with the highest resident population as of July 1, 2022. There were about 8.34 million people living in New York City as of July 2022.

The Mexican city of Cancún was the top Latin American destination for foreign visitors in 2018, with approximately 6.04 million international tourist arrivals. This number was expected to increase by 1.8 percent in 2019, reaching 6.15 million foreign arrivals that year. Argentina's capital, Buenos Aires, ranked second on the list of top city destinations for international tourism in Latin America, with nearly 2.7 million international tourist arrivals in 2018 and an estimate of 2.77 million arrivals for 2019. During the depicted period, the most visited city in the whole American continent was New York.

As of 2024, Austin was rated the city in the United States with the best smart city infrastructure, with an index score of ****. Seattle and New York City followed, with **** and ****, respectively. While Austin and Seattle are both in the top three of the best prepared U.S. cities for a smart city future , New York City ranked eighth, with a general index score of ****.

A dataset listing Virginia cities by population for 2024.

In 2025, approximately 23 million people lived in the São Paulo metropolitan area, making it the biggest in Latin America and the Caribbean and the sixth most populated in the world. The homonymous state of São Paulo was also the most populous federal entity in the country. The second place for the region was Mexico City with 22.75 million inhabitants. Brazil's cities Brazil is home to two large metropolises, only counting the population within the city limits, São Paulo had approximately 11.45 million inhabitants, and Rio de Janeiro around 6.21 million inhabitants. It also contains a number of smaller, but well known cities such as Brasília, Salvador, Belo Horizonte and many others, which report between 2 and 3 million inhabitants each. As a result, the country's population is primarily urban, with nearly 88 percent of inhabitants living in cities. Mexico City Mexico City's metropolitan area ranks sevenths in the ranking of most populated cities in the world. Founded over the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan in 1521 after the Spanish conquest as the capital of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the city still stands as one of the most important in Latin America. Nevertheless, the preeminent economic, political, and cultural position of Mexico City has not prevented the metropolis from suffering the problems affecting the rest of the country, namely, inequality and violence. Only in 2023, the city registered a crime incidence of 52,723 reported cases for every 100,000 inhabitants and around 24 percent of the population lived under the poverty line.

A dataset listing New York cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Maine cities by population for 2024.

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

TABLE III. Deaths in 122 U.S. cities - 2015122 Cities Mortality Reporting System ��� Each week, the vital statistics offices of 122 cities across the United States report the total number of death certificates processed and the number of those for which pneumonia or influenza was listed as the underlying or contributing cause of death by age group (Under 28 days, 28 days ���1 year, 1-14 years, 15-24 years, 25-44 years, 45-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ��� 85 years).FOOTNOTE:U: Unavailable -: No reported cases * Mortality data in this table are voluntarily reported from 122 cities in the United States, most of which have populations of 100,000 or more. A death is reported by the place of its occurrence and by the week that the death certificate was filed. Fetal deaths are not included. ** Totals include unknown ages. *** Partial counts for this city.

This dataset contains information about the demographics of all US cities and census-designated places with a population greater or equal to 65,000. This data comes from the US Census Bureau's 2015 American Community Survey. This product uses the Census Bureau Data API but is not endorsed or certified by the Census Bureau.

These data were downloaded from Google Earth Engine. Each csv includes Year Month Day CM Scenario and other columns. CM includes three scenario (historical, ssp245 and ssp585). The scenario involves the parameter (tasmax or tasmin). Other columns means the city ID. The city ID and corresponding city name can be seen in the csv file named UID Abbreviation.csv above and the shapefile of cities were used from the open repository (Chen et al. 2022). This global inventory includes 247 cities within the contiguous US. This can be found at: Chen, B., Wu, S., Song, Y. et al. Contrasting inequality in human exposure to greenspace between cities of Global North and Global South. Nat Commun 13, 4636 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32258-4.


And to select the 50 populous cities, 1 km X 1 km resolution imagery of population by Wang et. al (2022) was used.[Wang, X., Meng, X. & Long, Y. Projecting 1 km-grid population distributions from 2020 to 2100 globally under shared socioeconomic pathways. Sci Data 9, 563 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01675-x]. Based on this, we ranked 50 cities from those 247 US cities found in Chen et al. 2022.

Those data and real names of the cities can be studied from these papers.

A dataset listing Utah cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Iowa cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Georgia cities by population for 2024.

In 2023, the most visited city in the United States by international tourists was New York, attracting just under nine million visitors. Miami and Los Angeles followed in the ranking, with roughly 4.4 million and 3.6 million international visitors, respectively.

A dataset listing Colorado cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Oregon cities by population for 2024.

Graph and download economic data for Population Estimate, Total, Hispanic or Latino, Two or More Races, Two Races Excluding Some Other Race, and Three or More Races (5-year estimate) in St. Louis City, MO (B03002021E029510) from 2009 to 2023 about St. Louis City, MO; St. Louis; MO; latino; hispanic; estimate; persons; 5-year; population; and USA.

A dataset listing Louisiana cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Indiana cities by population for 2024.