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

Context

The San Francisco Bay Area (nine-county) is one of the largest urban areas in the US by population and GDP. It is home to over 7.5 million people and has a GDP of $995 billion (third highest by GDP output and first highest by GDP per capita). Home to Silicon Valley (a global center for high technology and innovation) and San Francisco (the second largest financial center in the US after New York), the Bay Area contains some of the most profitable industries and sophisticated workforces in the world. This dataset describes where these workers live and commute to work in 2018.

Content

This data file includes all needed information as a means to find out more about the different commute patterns, geographical locations, and necessary metrics to make predictions and draw conclusions.

Inspiration

• What can we learn about the different residence and workplace locations? What is the average distance between these locations?
• Which counties contain a high/low concentration of residence and workplace locations? Why?
• What counties do most of the commuters usually commute to work? What counties do most of the commuters call home?
• Are most of these commute patterns county-by-county or within a single county?
• Are there any noticeable outliers (e.g., long commute patterns) in this dataset? What counties contain a high concentration of these outliers?

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Migration (EQ4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Migration flows

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Migration refers to the movement of people from one location to another, typically crossing a county or regional boundary. Migration captures both voluntary relocation – for example, moving to another region for a better job or lower home prices – and involuntary relocation as a result of displacement. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, and county tables.

DATA SOURCE American Community Survey County-to-County Migration Flows 2012-2015 5-year rolling average http://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/data/tables.All.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Data for migration comes from the American Community Survey; county-to-county flow datasets experience a longer lag time than other standard datasets available in FactFinder. 5-year rolling average data was used for migration for all geographies, as the Census Bureau does not release 1-year annual data. Data is not available at any geography below the county level; note that flows that are relatively small on the county level are often within the margin of error. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas, by aggregating county data based on current metropolitan area boundaries. Data prior to 2011 is not available on Vital Signs due to inconsistent Census formats and a lack of net migration statistics for prior years. Only counties with a non-negligible flow are shown in the data; all other pairs can be assumed to have zero migration.

Given that the vast majority of migration out of the region was to other counties in California, California counties were bundled into the following regions for simplicity: Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Tulare Los Angeles + Inland Empire: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura Sacramento: El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba San Diego: San Diego San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus Rural: all other counties (23)

One key limitation of the American Community Survey migration data is that it is not able to track emigration (movement of current U.S. residents to other countries). This is despite the fact that it is able to quantify immigration (movement of foreign residents to the U.S.), generally by continent of origin. Thus the Vital Signs analysis focuses primarily on net domestic migration, while still specifically citing in-migration flows from countries abroad based on data availability.

The global developer population is expected to reach 28.7 million people by 2024, an increase of 3.2 million from the number seen in 2020. According to the source, much of this growth is expected to occur in China, where the growth rate is between six percent to eight percent heading up to 2023. How much do software developers earn in the U.S.? Software developers work within a wide array of specialties, honing their skills in different programming languages, techniques, or in disciplines such as design. The average salary of U.S.-based designers working in software development reached 108 thousand U.S. dollars as of June 2021, while this figure climbs to 165 thousand U.S. dollars for engineering managers. Salaries are highly dependent on location, however, with an entry-level developer working in the San Francisco/Bay area earning an average of 44.79 percent more than their counterparts starting out in Austin. JavaScript and HTML/CSS still the most widely used languages While programming languages continue to emerge or fall out of favor, JavaScript and HTML/CSS are mainstays of the coding landscape. In a global survey of software developers, over 60 percent of respondents reported using JavaScript, and HTML/CSS. SQL, Python, and Java rounded out the top five.

Annual population estimates as of July 1st, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, single year of age, five-year age group and gender, based on the Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) 2021.

A. SUMMARY Medical provider confirmed COVID-19 cases and confirmed COVID-19 related deaths in San Francisco, CA aggregated by Census ZIP Code Tabulation Areas and normalized by 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates for population data to calculate rate per 10,000 residents.

Cases and deaths are both mapped to the residence of the individual, not to where they were infected or died. For example, if one was infected in San Francisco at work but lives in the East Bay, those are not counted as SF Cases or if one dies in Zuckerberg San Francisco General but is from another county, that is also not counted in this dataset.

Dataset is cumulative and covers cases going back to March 2nd, 2020 when testing began. It is updated daily.

B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED Addresses from medical data are geocoded by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH). Those addresses are spatially joined to the geographic areas. Counts are generated based on the number of address points that match each geographic area. The 2018 ACS estimates for population provided by the Census are used to create a rate which is equal to ([count] / [acs_population]) * 10000) representing the number of cases per 10,000 residents.

C. UPDATE PROCESS Geographic analysis is scripted by SFDPH staff and synced to this dataset each day.

D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET Privacy rules in effect To protect privacy, certain rules are in effect: 1. Case counts greater than 0 and less than 10 are dropped - these will be null (blank) values 2. Cases dropped altogether for areas where acs_population < 1000

Rate suppression in effect where counts lower than 20 Rates are not calculated unless the case count is greater than or equal to 20. Rates are generally unstable at small numbers, so we avoid calculating them directly. We advise you to apply the same approach as this is best practice in epidemiology.

A note on Census ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) ZIP Code Tabulation Areas are special boundaries created by the U.S. Census based on ZIP Codes developed by the USPS. They are not, however, the same thing. ZCTAs are polygonal representations of USPS ZIP Code service area routes. Read how the Census develops ZCTAs on their website.

This dataset is a filtered view of another dataset You can find a full dataset of cases and deaths summarized by this and other geographic areas.

E. CHANGE LOG

• 9/11/2023 - data on COVID-19 cases and deaths summarized by ZIP code tabulation area are no longer being updated. This data is currently through 9/6/2023 and will not include any new data after this date.

This workbook provides data and data dictionaries for the SFMTA 2014 Travel Decision Survey. The 2014 Key Findings, Summary Report, and Methodology, including the survey instrument, can be found online at https://www.sfmta.com/about-sfmta/reports/travel-decision-survey-2014. On behalf of San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Corey, Canapary & Galanis (CC&G) undertook a Mode Share Survey within the City and County of San Francisco as well as the eight surrounding Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma and Solano. The primary goals of this study were to: • Assess percent mode share for travel in San Francisco for evaluation of the SFMTA Strategic Objective 2.3: Mode Share target of 50% non-private auto travel by FY2018 with a 95% confidence level and MOE +/- 5% or less. • Evaluate the above statement based on the following parameters: number of trips to, from, and within San Francisco by Bay Area residents. Trips by visitors to the Bay Area and for commercial purposes are not included. • Provide additional trip details, including trip purpose for each trip in the mode share question series. • Collect demographic data on the population of Bay Area residents who travel to, from, and within San Francisco. • Collect data on travel behavior and opinions that support other SFMTA strategy and project evaluation needs. The survey was conducted as a telephone study among with approximately 750 Bay Area residents aged 18 and older. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, and Cantonese. Surveying was conducted via random digit dial (RDD) and cell phone sample. All three survey datasets incorporate respondent weighting based on age and home _location; utilize the “weight” field when appropriate in your analysis. The survey period for this survey is as follows: 2014: October – November 2014 A few questions in TDS 2014 were added after the survey began. In the report, responses that did not answer those questions were excluded from the analysis. The questions that were added late are noted in the TDS 2014 methodology survey instrument. The margin of error is related to sample size (n). For the total sample, the margin of error is 3.5% for a confidence level of 95%. When looking at subsets of the data, such as just the SF population, just the female population, or just the population of people who bicycle, the sample size decreases and the margin of error increases. Below is a guide of the margin of error for different samples sizes. Be cautious in making conclusions based off of small sample sizes. At the 95% confidence level is: • n = 767 (Total Sample). Margin of error = +/- 3.5% • n = 384. Margin of error = +/- 4.95% • n = 100. Margin of error = +/- 9.80%

This workbook provides data and data dictionaries for the SFMTA 2017 Travel Decision Survey. On behalf of San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Corey, Canapary & Galanis (CC&G) undertook a Mode Share Survey within the City and County of San Francisco as well as the eight surrounding Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma and Solano. The primary goals of this study were to: • Assess percent mode share for travel in San Francisco for evaluation of the SFMTA Strategic Objective 2.3: Mode Share target of 50% non-private auto travel by FY2018 with a 95% confidence level and MOE +/- 5% or less. • Evaluate the above statement based on the following parameters: number of trips to, from, and within San Francisco by Bay Area residents. Trips by visitors to the Bay Area and for commercial purposes are not included. • Provide additional trip details, including trip purpose for each trip in the mode share question series. • Collect demographic data on the population of Bay Area residents who travel to, from, and within San Francisco. • Collect data on travel behavior and opinions that support other SFMTA strategy and project evaluation needs. The survey was conducted as a telephone study among 804 Bay Area residents aged 18 and older. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Tagalog. Surveying was conducted via random digit dial (RDD) and cell phone sample. All survey datasets incorporate respondent weighting based on age and home _location; utilize the “weight” field when appropriate in your analysis. The survey period for this survey is as follows: 2017: February - April 2017 The margin of error is related to sample size (n). For the total sample, the margin of error is 3.4% for a confidence level of 95%. When looking at subsets of the data, such as just the SF population, just the female population, or just the population of people who bicycle, the sample size decreases and the margin of error increases. Below is a guide of the margin of error for different samples sizes. Be cautious in making conclusions based off of small sample sizes. At the 95% confidence level is: • n = 804(Total Sample). Margin of error = +/- 3.4% • n = 400. Margin of error = +/- 4.85% • n = 100. Margin of error = +/- 9.80%

2010 Census tracts for the San Francisco Bay Region, clipped to remove major coastal and bay water areas. Features were extracted from, and clipped using, California 2018 TIGER/Line shapefiles by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and are reviewed and updated by local participants prior to each decennial census as part of the Census Bureau’s Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The Census Bureau updates census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where local or tribal governments declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of decennial census data.Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people with an optimum size of 4,000 people. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Ideally, census tract boundaries remain stable over time to facilitate statistical comparisons from census to census. However, physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, significant changes in population may result in splitting or combining census tracts.Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some states to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy.In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous.Census Tract Codes and Numbers—Census tract numbers have up to a 4-character basic number and may have an optional 2-character suffix; for example, 1457.02. The census tract numbers (used as names) eliminate any leading zeroes and append a suffix only if required. The 6-character numeric census tract codes, however, include leading zeroes and have an implied decimal point for the suffix. Census tract codes range from 000100 to 998999 and are unique within a county or equivalent area. The Census Bureau assigned a census tract code of 9900 to represent census tracts delineated to cover large bodies of water. In addition, census tract codes in the 9400s represent American Indian Areas and codes in the 9800s represent special land use areas.The Census Bureau uses suffixes to help identify census tract changes for comparison purposes. Local participants have an opportunity to review the existing census tracts before each census. If local participants split a census tract, the split parts usually retain the basic number, but receive different suffixes. In a few counties, local participants request major changes to, and renumbering of, the census tracts. Changes to individual census tract boundaries usually do not result in census tract numbering changes.Relationship to Other Geographic Entities—Within the standard census geographic hierarchy, census tracts never cross state or county boundaries, but may cross the boundaries of county subdivisions, places, urban areas, voting districts, congressional districts, and American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian areas.

Understanding the recent changes in mangrove adjacent to mega-cities is critical for conservation, management, and policymaking in coastal zones with fast population growth and global change. Here we investigated mangrove area changes in one of the world’s largest urban areas near the main estuaries in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA). Mangrove area changes are quantified for the period 1990–2018 by analyzing multiple sources of satellite images by classification algorithms. We found that estuarine mangrove area dynamics are driven by human actions and are contrasting between these two periods. (1) During 1990–2000, the estuarine mangrove area approximately decreased from 11.5 to 6.9 km2, among which the bulk part was transformed into aquaculture ponds (41.1%) and built-up area (29.9%). (2) During 2000–2018, the estuarine mangrove area rapidly increased to 18.3 km2 resulting from the protection and restoration efforts. Proportions of mangrove occurring in nature reserves increased from 37.5% in 1990 to >80% in the 2000s. Two major mangrove expansion ways, natural establishment (NE, in protected areas without any human interference) and human afforestation (HA) accounted almost equally (53.1 and 46.9%) for the gained estuarine mangrove area during 2010–2018. A future projection according to the current mangrove increasing rate suggests that all the low-lying land that is theoretically suitable for mangrove afforestation would be used up by 2060. Although afforestation has contributed to important gains in mangrove quantity, we highlight that it may also imply decreased habitat quality. It has resulted in a great occupation of high tidal mudflats and a loss of their valuable ecosystem services, and it may lead to spreading of non-native species, e.g., Sonneratia apetala, used in afforestation programs. Future restoration approaches should adopt more eco-friendly strategies, like reversing (abandoned) aquaculture ponds to native mangrove forests. Knowledge obtained from the GBA in this study may be also instrumental to ecological restorations for mangrove forests in other urbanized estuaries.

This workbook provides data and data dictionaries for the SFMTA 2015 Travel Decision SurveySFMTA Travel Decision Survey Data for 2015

On behalf of San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Corey, Canapary & Galanis (CC&G) undertook a Mode Share Survey within the City and County of San Francisco as well as the eight surrounding Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma and Solano.

The primary goals of this study were to: • Assess percent mode share for travel in San Francisco for evaluation of the SFMTA Strategic Objective 2.3: Mode Share target of 50% non-private auto travel by FY2018 with a 95% confidence level and MOE +/- 5% or less. • Evaluate the above statement based on the following parameters: number of trips to, from, and within San Francisco by Bay Area residents. Trips by visitors to the Bay Area and for commercial purposes are not included. • Provide additional trip details, including trip purpose for each trip in the mode share question series. • Collect demographic data on the population of Bay Area residents who travel to, from, and within San Francisco. • Collect data on travel behavior and opinions that support other SFMTA strategy and project evaluation needs.

The survey was conducted as a telephone study among 762 Bay Area residents aged 18 and older. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, and Cantonese. Surveying was conducted via random digit dial (RDD) and cell phone sample. All three survey datasets incorporate respondent weighting based on age and home location; utilize the “weight” field when appropriate in your analysis.

The survey period for this survey is as follows: 2015: August – October 2015

The margin of error is related to sample size (n). For the total sample, the margin of error is 3.5% for a confidence level of 95%. When looking at subsets of the data, such as just the SF population, just the female population, or just the population of people who bicycle, the sample size decreases and the margin of error increases. Below is a guide of the margin of error for different samples sizes. Be cautious in making conclusions based off of small sample sizes.

At the 95% confidence level is: • n = 762(Total Sample). Margin of error = +/- 3.5% • n = 382. Margin of error = +/- 4.95% • n = 100. Margin of error = +/- 9.80%

This workbook provides data and data dictionaries for the SFMTA 2012 Travel Decision Survey. The 2012 Summary Report, with methodology and survey instrument, is located at https://www.sfmta.com/about-sfmta/reports/travel-decision-survey-2012. Data, methodologies, and summary report for other SFMTA travel decision surveys are available on sfmta.com. On behalf of San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Corey, Canapary & Galanis (CC&G) undertook a Mode Share Survey within the City and County of San Francisco as well as the eight surrounding Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma and Solano.

The primary goals of this study were to: • Assess percent mode share for travel in San Francisco for evaluation of the SFMTA Strategic Objective 2.3: Mode Share target of 50% non-private auto travel by FY2018 with a 95% confidence level and MOE +/- 5% or less. • Evaluate the above statement based on the following parameters: number of trips to, from, and within San Francisco by Bay Area residents. Trips by visitors to the Bay Area and for commercial purposes are not included. • Provide additional trip details, including trip purpose for each trip in the mode share question series. • Collect demographic data on the population of Bay Area residents who travel to, from, and within San Francisco. • Collect data on travel behavior and opinions that support other SFMTA strategy and project evaluation needs.

The survey was conducted as a telephone study among with approximately 750 Bay Area residents aged 18 and older. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, and Cantonese. Surveying was conducted via random digit dial (RDD) and cell phone sample. This dataset incorporates respondent weighting based on age and home location; utilize the “weight” field when appropriate in your analysis.

The survey period for this survey is as follows: 2012: October 2012 – January 2013 The margin of error is related to sample size (n). For the total sample, the margin of error is 3.5% for a confidence level of 95%. When looking at subsets of the data, such as just the SF population, just the female population, or just the population of people who bicycle, the sample size decreases and the margin of error increases. Below is a guide of the margin of error for different samples sizes. Be cautious in making conclusions based off of small sample sizes.

At the 95% confidence level is: • n = 767 (Total Sample). Margin of error = +/- 3.5% • n = 384. Margin of error = +/- 4.95% • n = 100. Margin of error = +/- 9.80%

On behalf of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Corey, Canapary & Galanis undertook a Travel Decision Survey within the City and County of San Francisco, as well as the eight surrounding Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano. The primary goals of this study were to: 1. Assess percent mode share for travel in San Francisco for evaluation of the SFMTA Strategic Objective 2.3: Mode Share target of 50% non-private auto travel by FY 2018 with a 95% confidence level and margin of error ±5% or less. 2. Evaluate the above statement based on number of trips to, from, and within San Francisco by Bay Area residents. Trips by visitors to the Bay Area and for commercial purposes are not included. 3. Provide additional trip details, including trip purpose for each trip in the mode-share question series. 4. Collect demographic data on the population of Bay Area residents who travel to, from, and within San Francisco. 5. Collect data on travel behavior and opinions that support other SFMTA strategy and project evaluation needs.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Poverty (EQ5)

FULL MEASURE NAME The share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Poverty refers to the share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit, which varies based on the number of individuals in a given household. It reflects the number of individuals who are economically struggling due to low household income levels.

DATA SOURCE U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census http://www.nhgis.org (1980-1990) http://factfinder2.census.gov (2000)

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Form C17002 (2006-2017) http://api.census.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) The U.S. Census Bureau defines a national poverty level (or household income) that varies by household size, number of children in a household, and age of householder. The national poverty level does not vary geographically even though cost of living is different across the United States. For the Bay Area, where cost of living is high and incomes are correspondingly high, an appropriate poverty level is 200% of poverty or twice the national poverty level, consistent with what was used for past equity work at MTC and ABAG. For comparison, however, both the national and 200% poverty levels are presented.

For Vital Signs, the poverty rate is defined as the number of people (including children) living below twice the poverty level divided by the number of people for whom poverty status is determined. Poverty rates do not include unrelated individuals below 15 years old or people who live in the following: institutionalized group quarters, college dormitories, military barracks, and situations without conventional housing. The household income definitions for poverty change each year to reflect inflation. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). For the national poverty level definitions by year, see: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html For an explanation on how the Census Bureau measures poverty, see: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

For the American Community Survey datasets, 1-year data was used for region, county, and metro areas whereas 5-year rolling average data was used for city and census tract.

To be consistent across metropolitan areas, the poverty definition for non-Bay Area metros is twice the national poverty level. Data were not adjusted for varying income and cost of living levels across the metropolitan areas.

This workbook provides data and data dictionaries for the SFMTA 2013 Travel Decision Survey. The 2013 Summary Report and Methodology, including the survey instrument, can be found online at https://www.sfmta.com/about-sfmta/reports/travel-decision-survey-2013. Data, methodologies, and summary report for other SFMTA travel decision surveys is available on sfmta.com. On behalf of San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Corey, Canapary & Galanis (CC&G) undertook a Mode Share Survey within the City and County of San Francisco as well as the eight surrounding Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma and Solano. The primary goals of this study were to: • Assess percent mode share for travel in San Francisco for evaluation of the SFMTA Strategic Objective 2.3: Mode Share target of 50% non-private auto travel by FY2018 with a 95% confidence level and MOE +/- 5% or less. • Evaluate the above statement based on the following parameters: number of trips to, from, and within San Francisco by Bay Area residents. Trips by visitors to the Bay Area and for commercial purposes are not included. • Provide additional trip details, including trip purpose for each trip in the mode share question series. • Collect demographic data on the population of Bay Area residents who travel to, from, and within San Francisco. • Collect data on travel behavior and opinions that support other SFMTA strategy and project evaluation needs. The survey was conducted as a telephone study among with approximately 750 Bay Area residents aged 18 and older. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, and Cantonese. Surveying was conducted via random digit dial (RDD) and cell phone sample. All three survey datasets incorporate respondent weighting based on age and home location; utilize the “weight” field when appropriate in your analysis. The survey period for this survey is as follows: 2013: April 2014 – May 2014 (survey name of 2013 reflects the originally planned start date of Fall 2013) The margin of error is related to sample size (n). For the total sample, the margin of error is 3.5% for a confidence level of 95%. When looking at subsets of the data, such as just the SF population, just the female population, or just the population of people who bicycle, the sample size decreases and the margin of error increases. Below is a guide of the margin of error for different samples sizes. Be cautious in making conclusions based off of small sample sizes. At the 95% confidence level is: • n = 767 (Total Sample). Margin of error = +/- 3.5% • n = 384. Margin of error = +/- 4.95% • n = 100. Margin of error = +/- 9.80%

Worldwide, cetaceans are impacted by human activities, and those populations that occur in shallow-nearshore habitats are particularly vulnerable. We present the results of the first long-term study on the responses of a coastal population of endangered Irrawaddy dolphins to widespread habitat changes. We particularly investigated their responses in terms of distribution and abundance. Boat-based, line-transect surveys were conducted during 12 discrete survey periods in 7 survey years spanning a 15-year period (totaling 78 days and 4,630 km of effort) in Balikpapan Bay, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Irrawaddy dolphins were sighted on 136 occasions. Through DISTANCE analysis, a decrease in population density in the inner Bay area was observed from 0.45 dolphins/km2 in 2000–2001 (CV = 24%) to 0.34 and 0.32 dolphins/km2 in 2008 and 2015 (CV = 31% and 25%). A shift in distribution was noted between the periods 2000–2002 and 2008–2015 with significantly lower occurrence in the lower Bay segment compared to upper Bay segments. No sightings were made in the outer Bay area in later years, which coincided with increased shipping traffic in these areas. A peak in stranding events in 2016 and 2018 followed extremely high phenol levels within Bay waters in 2015 and a large-scale oil spill in 2018. The mean annual mortality rates of 0.67 Irrawaddy dolphins/year is unsustainable based on the lower potential biological removal (PBR) values for best abundance estimates of 2015 (Ndistance = 45 and Nmark–recapture = 73). Other threats to local dolphins include unsustainable fishing, underwater noise caused by construction, particularly piling activities. The research helped to identify Balikpapan Bay as an Important Marine Mammal Area by the IUCN MMPA Taskforce. Serious concerns remain for the concrete plans to move Indonesia’s capital city to the area north of the Bay, in terms of increased shipping traffic and harbor construction in the upper Bay segments that represent primary dolphin habitat. We recommend that protected areas be assigned for marine mammals and artisanal fisheries and shipping traffic and piling activities be excluded from these areas. We also recommend a legislated requirement of a mitigation protocol compulsory for piling and seismic activities within Indonesia.

2010 Census tracts for the San Francisco Bay Region. Features were extracted from California 2018 TIGER/Line shapefile by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and are reviewed and updated by local participants prior to each decennial census as part of the Census Bureau’s Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The Census Bureau updates census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where local or tribal governments declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of decennial census data.Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people with an optimum size of 4,000 people. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Ideally, census tract boundaries remain stable over time to facilitate statistical comparisons from census to census. However, physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, significant changes in population may result in splitting or combining census tracts.Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some states to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy.In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous.Census Tract Codes and Numbers—Census tract numbers have up to a 4-character basic number and may have an optional 2-character suffix; for example, 1457.02. The census tract numbers (used as names) eliminate any leading zeroes and append a suffix only if required. The 6-character numeric census tract codes, however, include leading zeroes and have an implied decimal point for the suffix. Census tract codes range from 000100 to 998999 and are unique within a county or equivalent area. The Census Bureau assigned a census tract code of 9900 to represent census tracts delineated to cover large bodies of water. In addition, census tract codes in the 9400s represent American Indian Areas and codes in the 9800s represent special land use areas.The Census Bureau uses suffixes to help identify census tract changes for comparison purposes. Local participants have an opportunity to review the existing census tracts before each census. If local participants split a census tract, the split parts usually retain the basic number, but receive different suffixes. In a few counties, local participants request major changes to, and renumbering of, the census tracts. Changes to individual census tract boundaries usually do not result in census tract numbering changes.Relationship to Other Geographic Entities—Within the standard census geographic hierarchy, census tracts never cross state or county boundaries, but may cross the boundaries of county subdivisions, places, urban areas, voting districts, congressional districts, and American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian areas.

Historical exploitation, and a combination of current anthropogenic impacts, such as climate change and habitat degradation, impact the population dynamics of marine mammalian megafauna. Right whales (Eubalaena spp.) are large cetaceans recovering from hunting, whose reproductive and population growth rate appear to be impacted by climate change. We apply noninvasive genetic methods to monitor southern right whale (E. australis, SRW) and test the application of noninvasive genetics to minimise the observer effects on the population. Our aim is to describe population structure, and interdecadal and interannual changes to assess species status in the Great Acceleration period of Anthropocene. As a basis for population genetic analyses, we collected samples from sloughed skin during post-migration epidermal moult. Considering the exploration-exploitation dilemma, we collaborated with whale-watching companies, as part of a citizen science approach and to reduce ad hoc logistic operations and biopsy equipment. We used mitochondrial and microsatellite data and population genetic tools. We report for the first time the genetic composition and differentiation of the Namibian portion of the range. Population genetic parameters suggest that South Africa hosts the largest population. This corresponds with higher estimates of current gene flow from Africa compared to older samples. We have observed considerable interannual variation in population density at the breeding ground and an interdecadal shift in genetic variability, evidenced by an increase in the point estimate inbreeding. Clustering analyses confirmed differentiation between the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific, presumably originating during the ice ages. We show that population monitoring of large whales, essential for their conservation management, is feasible using noninvasive sampling within non-scientific platforms. Observed patterns are concurrent to changes of movement ecology and decline in reproductive success of the South African population, probably reflecting a large-scale restructuring of pelagic marine food webs. Methods The majority of samples used in this study were obtained noninvasively by collecting sloughed skin from whale watching boats conducting commercial trips during the austral winters of 2016 – 2018 in the area of Gansbaai and Walker Bay, South Africa. Pieces of skin were spotted in the water, picked up by a dip net and transferred with sterile tweezers to a tube containing 96% ethanol. Additional samples were collected from a research boat by remote biopsy using a crossbow and Cetadart darts (Lambertsen, 1987). All samples were stored at − 18 °C. Another 32 biopsy samples were available in archive held by University of Pretoria Mammal Research Institute Whale Unit. These samples were collected in two different regions, South Africa and Namibia, between 2003 and 2013. Tissue was pulverised in liquid nitrogen and DNA was extracted using either the QIAGEN DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit or the GENEAID Genomic DNA Mini Kit. Seventeen microsatellite loci were grouped into multiplexes and amplified in 10 μl PCR reactions (Carroll et al., 2015). Multi-locus microsatellite genotyping was done according to sample type. For noninvasive samples, a multi-tube approach (Taberlet et al., 1996) was attempted, with each DNA extraction being amplified at all loci up to three times. For biopsy samples, all loci were amplified once. Sex was determined by amplification of the male specific SRY gene, multiplexed with an amplification of the ZFY/ZRX region as a positive control (Aasen and Medrano, 1990, Gilson et al., 1998). An approximately 550 base pair fragment of the left hypervariable domain of mtDNA control region adjacent to the Pro-tRNA gene was amplified according to Baker et al. (1999). The resulting PCR product was purified by either QIAGEN QIAquick PCR Purification Kit or GENEAID GenepHlow PCR Cleanup Kit and sequenced using BigDye chemistry on a 3130 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems). Chromatograms were visualized and edited in Geneious Prime v2020.2.4 (© Biomatters Ltd.). For the microsatellite data, quality filtering, allele calling and binning was performed in the program Genemapper 5 (Applied Biosystems). For samples where loci were run more than once, the final genotype was constructed by choosing the highest quality allele calls for each locus, as determined by the quality score in Genemapper. Any samples where the allele calls disagreed between runs were removed from the dataset. Genotypes that failed to amplify for seven or more loci were considered poor quality and were removed from the dataset. Genotype error rates were calculated per allele (Pompanon et al., 2005) using the internal control samples amplified in every PCR and replicate samples. We report the completeness of the final dataset in terms of number of loci per sample. First, genotypes within a year were reconciled to identify the number of unique whales sampled per austral winter season. Then, unique genotypes across years were compared to understand between year recaptures and the total number of whales sampled over the survey period. Cervus 3.0.7 was used to identify these within and between years genotype matches (Kalinowski et al., 2007) with the minimum number of matching loci set to at least eight. Pairs of genotypes that matched at eight loci but mismatched at up to three loci were reviewed and repeated if necessary to verify the individual’s identity or difference (Constantine et al., 2012).

Global Population of the World (GPW) translates census population data to a latitude-longitude grid so that population data may be used in cross-disciplinary studies. There are three data files with this data set for the reference years 1990 and 1995. Over 127,000 administrative units and population counts were collected and integrated from various sources to create the gridded data. In brief, GPW was created using the following steps:

* Population data were estimated for the product reference years, 1990 and 1995, either by the data source or by interpolating or extrapolating the given estimates for other years.
* Additional population estimates were created by adjusting the source population data to match UN national population estimates for the reference years.
* Borders and coastlines of the spatial data were matched to the Digital Chart of the World where appropriate and lakes from the Digital Chart of the World were added.
* The resulting data were then transformed into grids of UN-adjusted and unadjusted population counts for the reference years.
* Grids containing the area of administrative boundary data in each cell (net of lakes) were created and used with the count grids to produce population densities.

As with any global data set based on multiple data sources, the spatial and attribute precision of GPW is variable. The level of detail and accuracy, both in time and space, vary among the countries for which data were obtained.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Displacement Risk (EQ3)

FULL MEASURE NAME Share of lower-income households living in tracts at risk of displacement

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Displacement risk refers to the share of lower-income households living in neighborhoods that have been losing lower-income residents over time, thus earning the designation “at risk”. While “at risk” households may not necessarily be displaced in the short-term or long-term, neighborhoods identified as being “at risk” signify pressure as reflected by the decline in lower-income households (who are presumed to relocate to other more affordable communities). The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, county and census tract tables.

DATA SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census 1980-1990 Form STF3 https://nhgis.org

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census 2000 Form SF3a https://nhgis.org

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census 1980-2010 Longitudinal Tract Database http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 2010-2015 Form S1901 5-year rolling average http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 2010-2017 Form B19013 5-year rolling average http://factfinder2.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Aligning with the approach used for Plan Bay Area 2040, displacement risk is calculated by comparing the analysis year with the most recent year prior to identify census tracts that are losing lower-income households. Historical data is pulled from U.S. Census datasets and aligned with today’s census tract boundaries using crosswalk tables provided by LTDB. Tract data, as well as regional income data, are calculated using 5-year rolling averages for consistency – given that tract data is only available on a 5-year basis. Using household tables by income level, the number of households in each tract falling below the median are summed, which involves summing all brackets below the regional median and then summing a fractional share of the bracket that includes the regional median (assuming a simple linear distribution within that bracket).

Once all tracts in a given county or metro area are synced to today’s boundaries, the analysis identifies census tracts of greater than 500 lower-income people (in the prior year) to filter out low-population areas. For those tracts, any net loss between the prior year and the analysis year results in that tract being flagged as being at risk of displacement, and all lower-income households in that tract are flagged. To calculate the share of households at risk, the number of lower-income households living in flagged tracts are summed and divided by the total number of lower-income households living in the larger geography (county or metro). Minor deviations on a year-to-year basis should be taken in context, given that data on the tract level often fluctuates and has a significant margin of error; changes on the county and regional level are more appropriate to consider on an annual basis instead.