This graph shows the population density of the United States of America from 1790 to 2019. In 2019, the population density was approximately 92.9 residents per square mile of land area. Population density in the United States Population density has been tracked for over two hundred years in the United States. Over the last two centuries, the number of people living in the United States per square mile has grown from 4.5 in 1790 to 87.4 in 2010. After examining the data in detail, it becomes clear that a major population increase started around 1870. Population density was roughly 11 at the time and has doubled in the last century. Since then, population density grew by about 16 percent each decade. Population density doubled in 1900, and grew in total by around 800 percent until 2010.

The population density of the United States varies from state to state. The most densely populated state is New Jersey, with 1,208 people per square mile living there. Rhode Island is the second most densely populated state, with slightly over 1,000 inhabitants per square mile. A number of New England states follow at the top of the ranking, making the northeastern region of the United States the most densely populated region of the country.

The least populated U.S. state is the vast territory of Alaska. Only 1.3 inhabitants per square mile reside in the largest state of the U.S.

Compared to other countries around the world, the United States does not rank within the top 50, in terms of population density. Most of the leading countries and territories are city states. However, the U.S. is one of the most populous countries in the world, with a total population of over 327 million inhabitants, as of 2018.

This dataset provides detailed information about the population of all the 300 US Cities for the years 2024 and 2020. It includes the annual population change, population density, and the area of all the US cities.

In 2023, Washington, D.C. had the highest population density in the United States, with 11,130.69 people per square mile. As a whole, there were about 94.83 residents per square mile in the U.S., and Alaska was the state with the lowest population density, with 1.29 residents per square mile. The problem of population density Simply put, population density is the population of a country divided by the area of the country. While this can be an interesting measure of how many people live in a country and how large the country is, it does not account for the degree of urbanization, or the share of people who live in urban centers. For example, Russia is the largest country in the world and has a comparatively low population, so its population density is very low. However, much of the country is uninhabited, so cities in Russia are much more densely populated than the rest of the country. Urbanization in the United States While the United States is not very densely populated compared to other countries, its population density has increased significantly over the past few decades. The degree of urbanization has also increased, and well over half of the population lives in urban centers.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Population (LU1)

FULL MEASURE NAME Population estimates

LAST UPDATED October 2019

DESCRIPTION Population is a measurement of the number of residents that live in a given geographical area, be it a neighborhood, city, county or region.

DATA SOURCES U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census No link available (1960-1990) http://factfinder.census.gov (2000-2010)

California Department of Finance: Population and Housing Estimates Table E-6: County Population Estimates (1961-1969) Table E-4: Population Estimates for Counties and State (1971-1989) Table E-8: Historical Population and Housing Estimates (2001-2018) Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates (2011-2019) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census - via Longitudinal Tract Database Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University Population Estimates (1970 - 2010) http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Population Estimates (2011-2017) http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: Intercensal Estimates Estimates of the Intercensal Population of Counties (1970-1979) Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population (1980-1989) Population Estimates (1990-1999) Annual Estimates of the Population (2000-2009) Annual Estimates of the Population (2010-2017) No link available (1970-1989) http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/1990s/tables/MA-99-03b.txt http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/metro.html https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) All legal boundaries and names for Census geography (metropolitan statistical area, county, city, and tract) are as of January 1, 2010, released beginning November 30, 2010, by the U.S. Census Bureau. A Priority Development Area (PDA) is a locally-designated area with frequent transit service, where a jurisdiction has decided to concentrate most of its housing and jobs growth for development in the foreseeable future. PDA boundaries are current as of August 2019. For more information on PDA designation see http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/.

Population estimates for Bay Area counties and cities are from the California Department of Finance, which are as of January 1st of each year. Population estimates for non-Bay Area regions are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Decennial Census years reflect population as of April 1st of each year whereas population estimates for intercensal estimates are as of July 1st of each year. Population estimates for Bay Area tracts are from the decennial Census (1970 -2010) and the American Community Survey (2008-2012 5-year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Estimates of population density for tracts use gross acres as the denominator.

Population estimates for Bay Area PDAs are from the decennial Census (1970 - 2010) and the American Community Survey (2006-2010 5 year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Population estimates for PDAs are derived from Census population counts at the tract level for 1970-1990 and at the block group level for 2000-2017. Population from either tracts or block groups are allocated to a PDA using an area ratio. For example, if a quarter of a Census block group lies with in a PDA, a quarter of its population will be allocated to that PDA. Tract-to-PDA and block group-to-PDA area ratios are calculated using gross acres. Estimates of population density for PDAs use gross acres as the denominator.

Annual population estimates for metropolitan areas outside the Bay Area are from the Census and are benchmarked to each decennial Census. The annual estimates in the 1990s were not updated to match the 2000 benchmark.

The following is a list of cities and towns by geographical area: Big Three: San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland Bayside: Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Belmont, Belvedere, Berkeley, Brisbane, Burlingame, Campbell, Colma, Corte Madera, Cupertino, Daly City, East Palo Alto, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fairfax, Foster City, Fremont, Hayward, Hercules, Hillsborough, Larkspur, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Newark, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Pinole, Portola Valley, Redwood City, Richmond, Ross, San Anselmo, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sausalito, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, Union City, Vallejo, Woodside Inland, Delta and Coastal: American Canyon, Antioch, Benicia, Brentwood, Calistoga, Clayton, Cloverdale, Concord, Cotati, Danville, Dixon, Dublin, Fairfield, Gilroy, Half Moon Bay, Healdsburg, Lafayette, Livermore, Martinez, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Napa, Novato, Oakley, Orinda, Petaluma, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Rio Vista, Rohnert Park, San Ramon, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, St. Helena, Suisun City, Vacaville, Walnut Creek, Windsor, Yountville Unincorporated: all unincorporated towns

Race is a social and historical construct, and the racial categories counted by the census change over time so the process of constructing stable racial categories for these 50 years out of census data required complex and imperfect decisions. Here we have used historical research on early 20th century southern California to construct historic racial categories from the IPUMS full count data, which allows us to track groups that were not formally classified as racial groups in some census decades like Mexican, but which were important racial categories in southern California. Detailed explanation of how we constructed these categories and the rationale we used for the decisions we made can be found here. Layers are symbolized to show the percentage of each of the following groups from 1900-1940:AmericanIndian Not-Hispanic, AmericanIndian Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Black-Hispanic, Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Japanese, Mexican, Hispanic Not-Mexican, white non-Hispanic. The IPUMS Census data is messy and includes some errors and undercounts, making it hard to map some smaller populations, like Asian Indians (in census called Hindu in 1920) and creating a possible undercount of Native American populations. The race data mapped here also includes categories that may not have been socially meaningful at the time like Black-Hispanic, which generally would represent people from Mexico who the census enumerator classified as Black because of their dark skin, but who were likely simply part of Mexican communities at the time. We have included maps of the Hispanic not-Mexican category which shows very small numbers of non-Mexican Hispanic population, and American Indian Hispanic, which often captures people who would have been listed as Indian in the census, probably because of skin color, but had ancestry from Mexico (or another Hispanic country). This category may include some indigenous Californians who married into or assimilated into Mexican American communities in the early 20th century. If you are interested in mapping some of the other racial or ethnic groups in the early 20th century, you can explore and map the full range of variables we have created in the People's History of the IE IE_ED1900-1940 Race Hispanic Marriage and Age Feature layer.Suggested Citation: Tilton, Jennifer. People's History Race Ethnicity Dot Density Map 1900-1940. A People's History of the Inland Empire Census Project 1900-1940 using IPUMS Ancestry Full Count Data. Program in Race and Ethnic Studies University of Redlands, Center for Spatial Studies University of Redlands, UCR Public History. 2023. 2025Feature Layer CitationTilton, Jennifer, Tessa VanRy & Lisa Benvenuti. Race and Demographic Data 1900-1940. A People's History of the Inland Empire Census Project 1900-1940 using IPUMS Ancestry Full Count Data. Program in Race and Ethnic Studies University of Redlands, Center for Spatial Studies University of Redlands, UCR Public History. 2023. Additional contributing authors: Mackenzie Nelson, Will Blach & Andy Garcia Funding provided by: People’s History of the IE: Storyscapes of Race, Place, and Queer Space in Southern California with funding from NEH-SSRC Grant 2022-2023 & California State Parks grant to Relevancy & History. Source for Census Data 1900- 1940 Ruggles, Steven, Catherine A. Fitch, Ronald Goeken, J. David Hacker, Matt A. Nelson, Evan Roberts, Megan Schouweiler, and Matthew Sobek. IPUMS Ancestry Full Count Data: Version 3.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2021. Primary Sources for Enumeration District Linework 1900-1940 Steve Morse provided the full list of transcribed EDs for all 5 decades "United States Enumeration District Maps for the Twelfth through the Sixteenth US Censuses, 1900-1940." Images. FamilySearch. https://FamilySearch.org: 9 February 2023. Citing NARA microfilm publication A3378. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 2003. BLM PLSS Map Additional Historical Sources consulted include: San Bernardino City Annexation GIS Map Redlands City Charter Proposed with Ward boundaries (Not passed) 1902. Courtesy of Redlands City Clerk. Redlands Election Code Precincts 1908, City Ordinances of the City of Redlands, p. 19-22. Courtesy of Redlands City Clerk Riverside City Charter 1907 (for 1910 linework) courtesy of Riverside City Clerk. 1900-1940 Raw Census files for specific EDs, to confirm boundaries when needed, accessed through Family Search. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact jennifer_tilton@redlands.edu.

This project was designed to isolate the effects that individual crimes have on wage rates and housing prices, as gauged by individuals' and households' decisionmaking preferences changing over time. Additionally, this project sought to compute a dollar value that individuals would bear in their wages and housing costs to reduce the rates of specific crimes. The study used multiple decades of information obtained from counties across the United States to create a panel dataset. This approach was designed to compensate for the problem of collinearity by tracking how housing and occupation choices within particular locations changed over the decade considering all amenities or disamenities, including specific crime rates. Census data were obtained for this project from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) constructed by Ruggles and Sobek (1997). Crime data were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Other data were collected from the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association, County and City Data Book, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency. Independent variables for the Wages Data (Part 1) include years of education, school enrollment, sex, ability to speak English well, race, veteran status, employment status, and occupation and industry. Independent variables for the Housing Data (Part 2) include number of bedrooms, number of other rooms, building age, whether unit was a condominium or detached single-family house, acreage, and whether the unit had a kitchen, plumbing, public sewers, and water service. Both files include the following variables as separating factors: census geographic division, cost-of-living index, percentage unemployed, percentage vacant housing, labor force employed in manufacturing, living near a coastline, living or working in the central city, per capita local taxes, per capita intergovernmental revenue, per capita property taxes, population density, and commute time to work. Lastly, the following variables measured amenities or disamenities: average precipitation, temperature, windspeed, sunshine, humidity, teacher-pupil ratio, number of Superfund sites, total suspended particulate in air, and rates of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, violent crimes, and property crimes.

Estimated number of Vietnamese individuals aged 50+ years who are eligible for treatment by the US National Osteoporosis Foundation Guidelines.

The nine-banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) is the only species of Armadillo in the United States and alters ecosystems by excavating extensive burrows used by many other wildlife species. Relatively little is known about its habitat use or population densities, particularly in developed areas, which may be key to facilitating its range expansion. We evaluated Armadillo occupancy and density in relation to anthropogenic and landcover variables in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas along an urban to rural gradient. Armadillo detection probability was best predicted by temperature (positively) and precipitation (negatively). Contrary to expectations, occupancy probability of Armadillos was best predicted by slope (negatively) and elevation (positively) rather than any landcover or anthropogenic variables. Armadillo density varied considerably between sites (ranging from a mean of 4.88 – 46.20 Armadillos per km2) but was not associated with any environmental or anthropogenic variables. Methods Site Selection Our study took place in Northwest Arkansas, USA, in the greater Fayetteville metropolitan area. We deployed trail cameras (Spypoint Force Dark (Spypoint Inc, Victoriaville, Quebec, Canada) and Browning Strikeforce XD cameras (Browning, Morgan, Utah, USA) over the course of two winter seasons, December 2020-March 2021, and November 2021-March 2022. We sampled 10 study sites in year one, and 12 study sites in year two. All study sites were located in the Ozark Mountains ecoregion in Northwest Arkansas. Sites were all Oak Hickory dominated hardwood forests at similar elevation (213.6 – 541 m). Devils Eyebrow and ONSC are public natural areas managed by the Arkansas Natural heritage Commission (ANHC). Devil’s Den and Hobbs are managed by the Arkansas state park system. Markham Woods (Markham), Ninestone Land Trust (Ninestone) and Forbes, are all privately owned, though Markham has a publicly accessible trail system throughout the property. Lake Sequoyah, Mt. Sequoyah Woods, Kessler Mountain, Lake Fayetteville, and Millsaps Mountain are all city parks and managed by the city of Fayetteville. Lastly, both Weddington and White Rock are natural areas within Ozark National Forest and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. We sampled 5 sites in both years of the study including Devils Eyebrow, Markham Hill, Sequoyah Woods, Ozark Natural Science Center (ONSC), and Kessler Mountain. We chose our study sites to represent a gradient of human development, based primarily on Anthropogenic noise values (Buxton et al. 2017, Mennitt and Fristrup 2016). We chose open spaces that were large enough to accommodate camera trap research, as well as representing an array of anthropogenic noise values. Since anthropogenic noise is able to permeate into natural areas within the urban interface, introducing human disturbance that may not be detected by other layers such as impervious surface and housing unit density (Buxton et al. 2017), we used dB values for each site as an indicator of the level of urbanization. Camera Placement We sampled ten study sites in the first winter of the study. At each of the 10 study sites, we deployed anywhere between 5 and 15 cameras. Larger study areas received more cameras than smaller sites because all cameras were deployed a minimum of 150m between one another. We avoided placing cameras on roads, trails, and water sources to artificially bias wildlife detections. We also avoided placing cameras within 15m of trails to avoid detecting humans. At each of the 12 study areas we surveyed in the second winter season, we deployed 12 to 30 cameras. At each study site, we used ArcGIS Pro (Esri Inc, Redlands, CA) to delineate the trail systems and then created a 150m buffer on each side of the trail. We then created random points within these buffered areas to decide where to deploy cameras. Each random point had to occur within the buffered areas and be a minimum of 150m from the next nearest camera point, thus the number of cameras at each site varied based upon site size. We placed all cameras within 50m of the random points to ensure that cameras were deployed on safe topography and with a clear field of view, though cameras were not set in locations that would have increased animal detections (game trails, water sources, burrows etc.). Cameras were rotated between sites after 5 or 10 week intervals to allow us to maximize camera locations with a limited number of trail cameras available to us. Sites with more than 25 cameras were active for 5 consecutive weeks while sites with fewer than 25 cameras were active for 10 consecutive weeks. We placed all cameras on trees or tripods 50cm above ground and at least 15m from trails and roads. We set cameras to take a burst of three photos when triggered. We used Timelapse 2.0 software (Greenberg et al. 2019) to extract metadata (date and time) associated with all animal detections. We manually identified all species occurring in photographs and counted the number of individuals present. Because density estimation requires the calculation of detection rates (number of Armadillo detections divided by the total sampling period), we wanted to reduce double counting individuals. Therefore, we grouped photographs of Armadillos into “episodes” of 5 minutes in length to reduce double counting individuals that repeatedly triggered cameras (DeGregorio et al. 2021, Meek et al. 2014). A 5 min threshold is relatively conservative with evidence that even 1-minute episodes adequately reduces double counting (Meek et al. 2014). Landcover Covariates To evaluate occupancy and density of Armadillos based on environmental and anthropogenic variables, we used ArcGIS Pro to extract variables from 500m buffers placed around each camera (Table 2). This spatial scale has been shown to hold biological meaning for Armadillos and similarly sized species (DeGregorio et al. 2021, Fidino et al. 2016, Gallo et al. 2017, Magle et al. 2016). At each camera, we extracted elevation, slope, and aspect from the base ArcGIS Pro map. We extracted maximum housing unit density (HUD) using the SILVIS housing layer (Radeloff et al. 2018, Table 2). We extracted anthropogenic noise from the layer created by Mennitt and Fristrup (2016, Buxton et al. 2017, Table 2) and used the “L50” anthropogenic sound level estimate, which was calculated by taking the difference between predicted environmental noise and the calculated noise level. Therefore, we assume that higher levels of L50 sound corresponded to higher human presence and activity (i.e. voices, vehicles, and other sources of anthropogenic noise; Mennitt and Fristrup 2016). We derived the area of developed open landcover, forest area, and distance to forest edge from the 2019 National Land Cover Database (NLDC, Dewitz 2021, Table 2). Developed open landcover refers to open spaces with less than 20% impervious surface such as residential lawns, cemeteries, golf courses, and parks and has been shown to be important for medium-sized mammals (Gallo et al. 2017, Poessel et al. 2012). Forest area was calculated by combing all forest types within the NLCD layer (deciduous forest, mixed forest, coniferous forest), and summarizing the total area (km2) within the 500m buffer. Distance to forest edge was derived by creating a 30m buffer on each side of all forest boundaries and calculating the distance from each camera to the nearest forest edge. We calculated distance to water by combining the waterbody and flowline features in the National Hydrogeography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey) for the state of Arkansas to capture both permanent and ephemeral water sources that may be important to wildlife. We measured the distance to water and distance to forest edge using the geoprocessing tool “near” in ArcGIS Pro which calculates the Euclidean distance between a point and the nearest feature. We extracted Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from the Arkansas Department of Transportation database (Arkansas GIS Office). The maximum value for ADT was calculated using the Summarize Within tool in ArcGIS Pro. We tested for correlation between all covariates using a Spearman correlation matrix and removed any variable with correlation greater than 0.6. Pairwise comparisons between distance to roads and HUD and between distance to forest edge and forest area were both correlated above 0.6; therefore, we dropped distance to roads and distance to forest edge from analyses as we predicted that HUD and forest area would have larger biological impacts on our focal species (Kretser et al. 2008). Occupancy Analysis In order to better understand habitat associations while accounting for imperfect detection of Armadillos, we used occupancy modeling (Mackenzie et al. 2002). We used a single-species, single-season occupancy model (Mackenzie et al. 2002) even though we had two years of survey data at 5 of the study sites. We chose to do this rather than using a multi-season dynamic occupancy model because most sites were not sampled during both years of the study. Even for sites that were sampled in both years, cameras were not placed in the same locations each year. We therefore combined all sampling into one single-season model and created unique site by year combinations as our sampling locations and we used year as a covariate for analysis to explore changes in occupancy associated with the year of study. For each sampling location, we created a detection history with 7 day sampling periods, allowing presence/absence data to be recorded at each site for each week of the study. This allowed for 16 survey periods between 01 December 2020, and 11 March 2021 and 22 survey periods between 01 November 2021 and 24 March 2022. We treated each camera as a unique survey site, resulting in a total of 352 sites. Because not all cameras were deployed at the same time and for the same length of time, we used a staggered entry approach. We used a multi-stage fitting approach in which we

Contained within the 3rd Edition (1957) of the Atlas of Canada is a plate that shows the distribution of population in what is now Canada circa 1851, 1871, 1901, 1921 and 1941. The five maps display the boundaries of the various colonies, provinces and territories for each date. Also shown on these five maps are the locations of principal cities and settlements. These places are shown on all of the maps for reference purposes even though they may not have been in existence in the earlier years. Each map is accompanied by a pie chart providing the percentage distribution of Canadian population by province and territory corresponding to the date the map is based on. It should be noted that the pie chart entitled Percentage Distribution of Total Population, 1851, refers to the whole of what was then British North America. The name Canada in this chart refers to the province of Canada which entered confederation in 1867 as Ontario and Quebec. The other pie charts, however, show only percentage distribution of population in what was Canada at the date indicated. Three additional graphs are included on this plate and show changes in the distribution of the population of Canada from 1867 to 1951, changes in the percentage distribution of the population of Canada by provinces and territories from 1867 to 1951 and elements in the growth of the population of Canada for each ten-year period from 1891 to 1951.

Aggregate demographic and epidemiologic data for target citiesa.