As of 2023, Chugach State Park in Anchorage, Alaska, was the largest city park in the United States by a long shot, spanning 464,318 acres. Second in the ranking was the Great Dismal Swamp in the Coastal Plain Region of southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina, at 113 thousand acres. A wide variety of park authorities Most parks in the U.S. are owned by the municipality, state, county, regional agency, or the federal government. Both McDowell Sonoran Preserve and South Mountain Preserve are part of the state park system along with most of the parks in the ranking. One of the more well-known park authorities is the National Park Service (NPS) – an agency of the federal government. Blue Ridge Parkway was the most visited NPS park in 2023 alongside many other well-known U.S. parks. What defines a park? Parks in the U.S. are often called a variety of names, just a few of which are: forest, reserve, preserve and wildlife management area. Sometimes the differences between parks in the U.S. can vary massively from monuments to expansive woodland. The Lincoln Memorial made the ranking of the most visited city parks in the U.S., while this may not seem like it comes under the classification of a ‘park’, it is cared for by the National Park Service.

The city park with the highest annual visitation in 2023 was Central Park in New York, accounting for a total of 42 million visitors. The second most visited city park in that year was Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, with nearly half the visitation of Central Park, at 24 million.

This graph depicts the size of municipally owned city parks in the U.S. in 2010. The Cullen Park in Houston has a size of 9270 acres.

This graph depicts the size of county-owned city parks in the U.S. in 2010. The Bear Creek Pioneers Park in Houston has an area of 2,168 acres.

Reason for Selection Protected natural areas in urban environments provide urban residents a nearby place to connect with nature and offer refugia for some species. Because beaches in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are open to the public, beaches also provide important outdoor recreation opportunities for urban residents, so we include beaches as parks in this indicator. Input Data

Southeast Blueprint 2023 subregions: Caribbean
Southeast Blueprint 2023 extent
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Coastal Relief Model, accessed 11-22-2022
Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0: VI, PR, and Marine Combined Fee Easement
Puerto Rico Protected Natural Areas 2018 (December 2018 update): Terrestrial and marine protected areas (PACAT2018_areas_protegidasPR_TERRESTRES_07052019.shp, PACAT2018_areas_protegidasPR_MARINAS_07052019.shp) 
2020 Census Urban Areas from the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification; download the data, read more about how urban areas were redefined following the 2020 census
OpenStreetMap data “multipolygons” layer, accessed 3-14-2023

A polygon from this dataset is considered a park if the “leisure” tag attribute is either “park” or “nature_reserve”, and considered a beach if the value in the “natural” tag attribute is “beach”. OpenStreetMap describes leisure areas as “places people go in their spare time” and natural areas as “a wide variety of physical geography, geological and landcover features”. Data were downloaded in .pbf format and translated ton an ESRI shapefile using R code. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Additional credit to OSM contributors. Read more on the OSM copyright page.

TNC Lands - Public Layer, accessed 3-8-2023
U.S. Virgin Islands beaches layer (separate vector layers for St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John) provided by Joe Dwyer with Lynker/the NOAA Caribbean Climate Adaptation Program on 3-3-2023 (contact jdwyer@lynker.com for more information)

Mapping Steps

Most mapping steps were completed using QGIS (v 3.22) Graphical Modeler.
Fix geometry errors in the PAD-US PR data using Fix Geometry. This must be done before any analysis is possible.
Merge the terrestrial PR and VI PAD-US layers.
Use the NOAA coastal relief model to restrict marine parks (marine polygons from PAD-US and Puerto Rico Protected Natural Areas) to areas shallower than 10 m in depth. The deep offshore areas of marine parks do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture nearby opportunities for urban residents to connect with nature.
Merge into one layer the resulting shallow marine parks from marine PAD-US and the Puerto Rico Protected Natural Areas along with the combined terrestrial PAD-US parks, OpenStreetMap, TNC Lands, and USVI beaches. Omit from the Puerto Rico Protected Areas layer the “Zona de Conservación del Carso”, which has some policy protections and conservation incentives but is not formally protected.
Fix geometry errors in the resulting merged layer using Fix Geometry.
Intersect the resulting fixed file with the Caribbean Blueprint subregion.
Process all multipart polygons to single parts (referred to in Arc software as an “explode”). This helps the indicator capture, as much as possible, the discrete units of a protected area that serve urban residents.
Clip the Census urban area to the Caribbean Blueprint subregion.
Select all polygons that intersect the Census urban extent within 1.2 miles (1,931 m). The 1.2 mi threshold is consistent with the average walking trip on a summer day (U.S. DOT 2002) used to define the walking distance threshold used in the greenways and trails indicator. Note: this is further than the 0.5 mi distance used in the continental version of the indicator. We extended it to capture East Bay and Point Udall based on feedback from the local conservation community about the importance of the park for outdoor recreation.
Dissolve all the park polygons that were selected in the previous step.
Process all multipart polygons to single parts (“explode”) again.
Add a unique ID to the selected parks. This value will be used to join the parks to their buffers.
Create a 1.2 mi (1,931 m) buffer ring around each park using the multiring buffer plugin in QGIS. Ensure that “dissolve buffers” is disabled so that a single 1.2 mi buffer is created for each park.
Assess the amount of overlap between the buffered park and the Census urban area using overlap analysis. This step is necessary to identify parks that do not intersect the urban area, but which lie within an urban matrix. This step creates a table that is joined back to the park polygons using the UniqueID.
Remove parks that had ≤2% overlap with the urban areas when buffered. This excludes mostly non-urban parks that do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture parks that provide nearby access for urban residents. Note: In the continental version of this indicator, we used a threshold of 10%. In the Caribbean version, we lowered this to 2% in order to capture small parks that dropped out of the indicator when we extended the buffer distance to 1.2 miles.
Calculate the GIS acres of each remaining park unit using the Add Geometry Attributes function.
Join the buffer attribute table to the previously selected parks, retaining only the parks that exceeded the 2% urban area overlap threshold while buffered. 
Buffer the selected parks by 15 m. Buffering prevents very small parks and narrow beaches from being left out of the indicator when the polygons are converted to raster.
Reclassify the polygons into 7 classes, seen in the final indicator values below. These thresholds were informed by park classification guidelines from the National Recreation and Park Association, which classify neighborhood parks as 5-10 acres, community parks as 30-50 acres, and large urban parks as optimally 75+ acres (Mertes and Hall 1995).
Export the final vector file to a shapefile and import to ArcGIS Pro.
Convert the resulting polygons to raster using the ArcPy Polygon to Raster function. Assign values to the pixels in the resulting raster based on the polygon class sizes of the contiguous park areas.
Clip to the Caribbean Blueprint 2023 subregion.
As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2023. 

Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in the Southeast Blueprint Data Download under > 6_Code. Final indicator values Indicator values are assigned as follows: 6 = 75+ acre urban park 5 = >50 to <75 acre urban park 4 = 30 to <50 acre urban park 3 = 10 to <30 acre urban park 2 = 5 to <10 acre urban park 1 = <5 acre urban park 0 = Not identified as an urban park Known Issues

This indicator does not include park amenities that influence how well the park serves people and should not be the only tool used for parks and recreation planning. Park standards should be determined at a local level to account for various community issues, values, needs, and available resources. 
This indicator includes some protected areas that are not open to the public and not typically thought of as “parks”, like mitigation lands, private easements, and private golf courses. While we experimented with excluding them using the public access attribute in PAD, due to numerous inaccuracies, this inadvertently removed protected lands that are known to be publicly accessible. As a result, we erred on the side of including the non-publicly accessible lands.
This indicator includes parks and beaches from OpenStreetMap, which is a crowdsourced dataset. While members of the OpenStreetMap community often verify map features to check for accuracy and completeness, there is the potential for spatial errors (e.g., misrepresenting the boundary of a park) or incorrect tags (e.g., labelling an area as a park that is not actually a park). However, using a crowdsourced dataset gives on-the-ground experts, Blueprint users, and community members the power to fix errors and add new parks to improve the accuracy and coverage of this indicator in the future.

Other Things to Keep in Mind

This indicator calculates the area of each park using the park polygons from the source data. However, simply converting those park polygons to raster results in some small parks and narrow beaches being left out of the indicator. To capture those areas, we buffered parks and beaches by 15 m and applied the original area calculation to the larger buffered polygon, so as not to inflate the area by including the buffer. As a result, when the buffered polygons are rasterized, the final indicator has some areas of adjacent pixels that receive different scores. While these pixels may appear to be part of one contiguous park or suite of parks, they are scored differently because the park polygons themselves are not actually contiguous. 
The Caribbean version of this indicator uses a slightly different methodology than the continental Southeast version. It includes parks within a 1.2 mi distance from the Census urban area, compared to 0.5 mi in the continental Southeast. We extended it to capture East Bay and Point Udall based on feedback from the local conservation community about the importance of the park for outdoor recreation. Similarly, this indicator uses a 2% threshold of overlap between buffered parks and the Census urban areas, compared to a 10% threshold in the continental Southeast. This helped capture small parks that dropped out of the indicator when we extended the buffer distance to 1.2 miles. Finally, the Caribbean version does not use the impervious surface cutoff applied in the continental Southeast

In 2023, the city in the United States with the highest share of parkland was Anchorage, Alaska, where approximately 80 percent of the city was parkland. In second place, with almost half the percentage of parkland was Fremont, California, where 44 percent of the city was parkland.

Reason for SelectionProtected natural areas in urban environments provide urban residents a nearby place to connect with nature and offer refugia for some species. They help foster a conservation ethic by providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and also support ecosystem services like offsetting heat island effects (Greene and Millward 2017, Simpson 1998), water filtration, stormwater retention, and more (Hoover and Hopton 2019). In addition, parks, greenspace, and greenways can help improve physical and psychological health in communities (Gies 2006). Urban park size complements the equitable access to potential parks indicator by capturing the value of existing parks.Input DataSoutheast Blueprint 2024 extentFWS National Realty Tracts, accessed 12-13-2023Protected Areas Database of the United States(PAD-US):PAD-US 3.0national geodatabase -Combined Proclamation Marine Fee Designation Easement, accessed 12-6-20232020 Census Urban Areas from the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification; download the data, read more about how urban areas were redefined following the 2020 censusOpenStreetMap data “multipolygons” layer, accessed 12-5-2023A polygon from this dataset is considered a beach if the value in the “natural” tag attribute is “beach”. Data for coastal states (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX) were downloaded in .pbf format and translated to an ESRI shapefile using R code. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under theOpen Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by theOpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Additional credit to OSM contributors. Read more onthe OSM copyright page.2021 National Land Cover Database (NLCD): Percentdevelopedimperviousness2023NOAA coastal relief model: volumes 2 (Southeast Atlantic), 3 (Florida and East Gulf of America), 4 (Central Gulf of America), and 5 (Western Gulf of America), accessed 3-27-2024Mapping StepsCreate a seamless vector layer to constrain the extent of the urban park size indicator to inland and nearshore marine areas <10 m in depth. The deep offshore areas of marine parks do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture nearby opportunities for urban residents to connect with nature. Shallow areas are more accessible for recreational activities like snorkeling, which typically has a maximum recommended depth of 12-15 meters. This step mirrors the approach taken in the Caribbean version of this indicator.Merge all coastal relief model rasters (.nc format) together using QGIS “create virtual raster”.Save merged raster to .tif and import into ArcPro.Reclassify the NOAA coastal relief model data to assign areas with an elevation of land to -10 m a value of 1. Assign all other areas (deep marine) a value of 0.Convert the raster produced above to vector using the “RasterToPolygon” tool.Clip to 2024 subregions using “Pairwise Clip” tool.Break apart multipart polygons using “Multipart to single parts” tool.Hand-edit to remove deep marine polygon.Dissolve the resulting data layer.This produces a seamless polygon defining land and shallow marine areas.Clip the Census urban area layer to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Clip PAD-US 3.0 to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Remove the following areas from PAD-US 3.0, which are outside the scope of this indicator to represent parks:All School Trust Lands in Oklahoma and Mississippi (Loc Des = “School Lands” or “School Trust Lands”). These extensive lands are leased out and are not open to the public.All tribal and military lands (“Des_Tp” = "TRIBL" or “Des_Tp” = "MIL"). Generally, these lands are not intended for public recreational use.All BOEM marine lease blocks (“Own_Name” = "BOEM"). These Outer Continental Shelf lease blocks do not represent actively protected marine parks, but serve as the “legal definition for BOEM offshore boundary coordinates...for leasing and administrative purposes” (BOEM).All lands designated as “proclamation” (“Des_Tp” = "PROC"). These typically represent the approved boundary of public lands, within which land protection is authorized to occur, but not all lands within the proclamation boundary are necessarily currently in a conserved status.Retain only selected attribute fields from PAD-US to get rid of irrelevant attributes.Merged the filtered PAD-US layer produced above with the OSM beaches and FWS National Realty Tracts to produce a combined protected areas dataset.The resulting merged data layer contains overlapping polygons. To remove overlapping polygons, use the Dissolve function.Clip the resulting data layer to the inland and nearshore extent.Process all multipart polygons (e.g., separate parcels within a National Wildlife Refuge) to single parts (referred to in Arc software as an “explode”).Select all polygons that intersect the Census urban extent within 0.5 miles. We chose 0.5 miles to represent a reasonable walking distance based on input and feedback from park access experts. Assuming a moderate intensity walking pace of 3 miles per hour, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s physical activity guidelines, the 0.5 mi distance also corresponds to the 10-minute walk threshold used in the equitable access to potential parks indicator.Dissolve all the park polygons that were selected in the previous step.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (“explode”) again.Add a unique ID to the selected parks. This value will be used in a later step to join the parks to their buffers.Create a 0.5 mi (805 m) buffer ring around each park using the multiring plugin in QGIS. Ensure that “dissolve buffers” is disabled so that a single 0.5 mi buffer is created for each park.Assess the amount of overlap between the buffered park and the Census urban area using “overlap analysis”. This step is necessary to identify parks that do not intersect the urban area, but which lie within an urban matrix (e.g., Umstead Park in Raleigh, NC and Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve in Atlanta, GA). This step creates a table that is joined back to the park polygons using the UniqueID.Remove parks that had ≤10% overlap with the urban areas when buffered. This excludes mostly non-urban parks that do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture parks that provide nearby access for urban residents. Note: The 10% threshold is a judgement call based on testing which known urban parks and urban National Wildlife Refuges are captured at different overlap cutoffs and is intended to be as inclusive as possible.Calculate the GIS acres of each remaining park unit using the Add Geometry Attributes function.Buffer the selected parks by 15 m. Buffering prevents very small and narrow parks from being left out of the indicator when the polygons are converted to raster.Reclassify the parks based on their area into the 7 classes seen in the final indicator values below. These thresholds were informed by park classification guidelines from the National Recreation and Park Association, which classify neighborhood parks as 5-10 acres, community parks as 30-50 acres, and large urban parks as optimally 75+ acres (Mertes and Hall 1995).Assess the impervious surface composition of each park using the NLCD 2021 impervious layer and the Zonal Statistics “MEAN” function. Retain only the mean percent impervious value for each park.Extract only parks with a mean impervious pixel value <80%. This step excludes parks that do not meet the intent of the indicator to capture opportunities to connect with nature and offer refugia for species (e.g., the Superdome in New Orleans, LA, the Astrodome in Houston, TX, and City Plaza in Raleigh, NC).Extract again to the inland and nearshore extent.Export the final vector file to a shapefile and import to ArcGIS Pro.Convert the resulting polygons to raster using the ArcPy Feature to Raster function and the area class field.Assign a value of 0 to all other pixels in the Southeast Blueprint 2024 extent not already identified as an urban park in the mapping steps above. Zero values are intended to help users better understand the extent of this indicator and make it perform better in online tools.Use the land and shallow marine layer and “extract by mask” tool to save the final version of this indicator.Add color and legend to raster attribute table.As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in theSoutheast Blueprint Data Downloadunder > 6_Code.Final indicator valuesIndicator values are assigned as follows:6= 75+ acre urban park5= 50 to <75 acre urban park4= 30 to <50 acre urban park3= 10 to <30 acre urban park2=5 to <10acreurbanpark1 = <5 acre urban park0 = Not identified as an urban parkKnown IssuesThis indicator does not include park amenities that influence how well the park serves people and should not be the only tool used for parks and recreation planning. Park standards should be determined at a local level to account for various community issues, values, needs, and available resources.This indicator includes some protected areas that are not open to the public and not typically thought of as “parks”, like mitigation lands, private easements, and private golf courses. While we experimented with excluding them using the public access attribute in PAD, due to numerous inaccuracies, this inadvertently removed protected lands that are known to be publicly accessible. As a result, we erred on the side of including the non-publicly accessible lands.The NLCD percent impervious layer contains classification inaccuracies. As a result, this indicator may exclude parks that are mostly natural because they are misclassified as mostly impervious. Conversely, this indicator may include parks that are mostly impervious because they are misclassified as mostly

Human-nature connection (HNC) is a concept derived from investigating the formulation and extent of an individual’s identification with the natural world. This relationship is often characterized as an emotional bond to nature that develops from the contextualized, physical interactions of an individual, beginning in childhood. This outcome presents complexity in evaluating the development of HNC but suggests optimism in the pathways for enhancing lifelong HNC. As urban populations increase, there is a growing recognition worldwide of the potential for urban green space to cultivate HNC and thus shape the environmental identity of urban residents. The results of an online survey of 560 visitors to three community parks (managed primarily to provide a variety of physical, social and cultural opportunities) and three conservation parks (managed primarily to protect native plants and wildlife) in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, were used to investigate HNC. Linear mixed effects models evaluated v..., Methodology Study Area Madison has a population of approximately 270,000 residents, covers approximately 260 km2, and is located in south central Wisconsin, USA (US Census Bureau, 2022). Madison is currently the fastest growing city in Wisconsin and is home to the state capital and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (US Census Bureau, 2022). The study area is within the Yahara Watershed, now largely dominated by agricultural and urban land cover, and experiences four distinct seasons (Carpenter et al., 2007, Wisconsin State Climatology Office, 2010).Â
The six selected parks were based on their classification as a community or conservation park; an estimated visitation rate; a central, western, or eastern location in Madison; and approval from the Madison Parks Division of the City of Madison (Figure 1). The size of the community parks ranged from 19.07 ha to 101.50 ha, and the size of the conservation parks ranged from 24.39 ha to 39.17 ha. The parks can be broadly described as mix..., , # Human-nature connection consent form and survey

https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h70rxwdqr

The data set contains the raw and coded data used in the analysis as presented in the published article. The supplementary material contains two documents, the consent form that preceded the survey and the survey questions that were administered online to community and conservation park visitors in Madison, WI, USA as presented in the published article.

Description of the data and file structure

The data set contains the raw and coded data used in the analysis as presented in the published article. The supplementary material contains two documents, the consent form that preceded the survey and the survey questions that were administered online to community and conservation park visitors in Madison, WI, USA as presented in the published article.

The following provides a definition for each column notation. ParkID indicates each park's identification...

The Austin Parks and Recreation System's ranking on the Trust for Public Land ParkScore Index. This index ranks the park systems of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. based on park acreage, park size, park funding, park access, and a variety of other factors.

This data set supports HE.C.2 of SD23.

View more details and insights related to this data set on the story page: https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/Austin-s-ParkScore-Ranking-absolute-score-and-rank/rnwr-4s4u/

*If a cell is blank, that means PARD did not have a response for that year or TPL removed the question for that

The map provided represents the various parks and areas of open space that are within and neighboring the Salinas city limits. The parks are classified by Type: Small, Community, Neighborhood, Special Recreation, and Large Urban. The parks seen on the map include:Cesar Chavez Community Park Acacia Court El Dorado Community Park Central Community Park Mo Co Sheriff's Posse GroundsTwin Creeks Golf CourseCarmel CornerSalinas Fairways Golf CourseMission Neighborhood ParkMyrtle Court Play LotVeterans Memorial ParkRossi Rico Linear ParkwaySalinas Golf & County ClubConstitution Soccer ComplexCreekbridge Neighborhood ParkNatividad Neighborhood ParkMcKinnon Neighborhood ParkSalinas Fairways Golf CourseNatividad Creek Community ParkWoodside Neighborhood ParkFirehouse Recreation CenterWilliams Ranch Neighborhood ParkBataan Memorial ParkLos Padres Neighborhood ParkLa Paz Neighborhood ParkSalinas Municipal StadiumHartnell Neighborhood ParkSanta Rita Neighborhood ParkNorthgate Tot LotBread Box Recreational CenterLaurelwood Neighborhood ParkGabilan Play LotGene Robinson ParkSteinbeck Neighborhood ParkNorthgate Neighborhood ParkCloster Community ParkLaurel Neighborhood ParkJaycee Tot LotSoberanes Neighborhood ParkLaurel Heights Neighborhood ParkMonte Bella Community ParkSoto SquareSanborn Neighborhood ParkSanta Lucia PlaygroundMaple Play LotFerrasci ParkClay Street Play LotAzahel Cruz ParkSalinas Recreation CenterClaremont Manor Neighborhood ParkHarden Neighborhood ParkExposition Grounds (Expo Site)Frank Paul School ParkSherwood Park

In 2023, New York City had the highest public park and recreation spending of any city in the United States at approximately 1.49 billion U.S. dollars. Second in the ranking was Chicago, Illinois, which spent around 573 million U.S. dollars on parks and rec.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 5 cities in the Park County, WY by Non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Non-Hispanic Native American Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Park County, WY by their Non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Non-Hispanic Native American Population: The Non-Hispanic Native American population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Non-Hispanic Native American. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Park County Non-Hispanic Native American Population: This tells us how much of the entire Park County, WY Non-Hispanic Native American population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1 cities in the Manassas Park city, VA by American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Native American Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Manassas Park city, VA by their American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Native American Population: The Native American population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Native American. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Manassas Park city Native American Population: This tells us how much of the entire Manassas Park city, VA Native American population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

In 2024, the city with the highest spending per capita on parks and recreation in the United States was Irvine, California. The city spent around 643 U.S. dollars per resident on parks and recreation that year.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1 cities in the Manassas Park city, VA by White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by White Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Manassas Park city, VA by their White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• White Population: The White population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Manassas Park city White Population: This tells us how much of the entire Manassas Park city, VA White population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1 cities in the Manassas Park city, VA by Black or African American population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Black Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Manassas Park city, VA by their Black or African American population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Black Population: The Black population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Black. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Manassas Park city Black Population: This tells us how much of the entire Manassas Park city, VA Black population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

This statistic shows the cities with the largest number of park playgrounds per 10,000 residents (not including playgrounds in school sites) in the United States in 2023. There were 7 park playgrounds for every 10,000 residents in Madison, Wisconsin, making it the city with the most playgrounds per 10,000 residents.

Larger NYC parks (generally >20 acres) are subdivided into smaller sections that make inspecting these parks feasible and efficient. These sections are called "zones." The size and boundaries usually conform to one or more of the following criteria: Zones should be inspectable in 1-2 hours; zone boundaries should follow the park’s features (paths, tree lines, etc) whenever possible; and/or conform to pre-existing boundaries used to divide the park for maintenance; and/or define a cohesive area within the park (ballfields, wooded areas, etc). Besides zones, this layer contains a handful of Sitting Areas that are part of larger parks but could not be defined as zones due to their smaller size.

Mobile Home Park Locations

Locations and details of mobile home parks in the United States

By Homeland Infrastructure Foundation [source]

About this dataset

The Mobile Home Parks Inventory dataset provides a comprehensive list of mobile home parks across the United States. This dataset is crucial for emergency preparedness and evacuation planning, as mobile home parks are inhabited by a vulnerable population that is particularly susceptible to natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and flooding.

The dataset includes detailed information about each mobile home park, including its location coordinates (longitude and latitude), address details (street address, city, state, ZIP code), and additional address information if available. It also provides contact details such as telephone numbers and websites for further information about each park.

Furthermore, the dataset contains essential attributes related to the characteristics of mobile home parks. These attributes include the number of units (mobile homes) within each park, allowing authorities to assess capacity during emergency situations. Additionally, it categorizes the type of each park (e.g., recreational vehicle parks), its status (e.g., operational or closed), and its size classification.

To ensure data accuracy and reliability, various validation methods have been implemented. The validation process includes verifying the data sources from where this information was obtained along with dates when data was sourced or validated.

Moreover, this comprehensive inventory incorporates geographical references with FIPS codes for counties in which these mobile home parks are located. Furthermore,the NAICS code provides an additional industry classification system describing these facilities in greater detail.

Lastly,this Mobile Home Parks Inventory recognizes that reverse geocoding has been employed for gathering precise spatial coordinates.Because vulnerability differs across regions,state boundaries have also been included to facilitate analysis at a higher level.Alongside state boundaries,this dataset acknowledges country-level variations which could be valuable while comparing international mobile homes inventories .

By utilizing this extensive collection of accurate and up-to-date information on mobile home parks in the United States policymakers,government agencies,and emergency responders can effectively plan evacuation strategies,mobile resource allocation,and disaster response efforts for ensuring public safety during natural calamities.This valuable knowledge will ultimately enhance disaster mitigation and the overall resilience of these vulnerable communities

How to use the dataset

• Understanding the Columns:

  • X and Y: These columns represent the longitude and latitude coordinates of each mobile home park. They can be used for geographical analysis and mapping purposes.
  • NAME: This column provides the name of each mobile home park. It is useful for identifying specific parks.
  • ADDRESS: The street address where each mobile home park is located.
  • ADDRESS2: Additional address information (if available) for each mobile home park.
  • CITY: The city where each mobile home park is situated.
  • STATE: The state where each mobile home park is located.
  • ZIP and ZIP4: These columns contain the ZIP code information for each mobile home park, including additional ZIP code details if available.
  • TELEPHONE: The contact telephone number for each mobile home park, which can be useful for making inquiries or gathering more information directly from them.
  • TYPE: This column indicates the type of the mobile home park (e.g., permanent residential, seasonal).
  • STATUS: The status of a particular mobile home park (e.g., open, closed).
  • COUNTY and COUNTYFIPS:The county where each mobile h0me_1park is situated along with its associated FIPS code.

• Analyzing Park Characteristics: UNITS & SIZE columns provide insights into various aspects: UNITS represents the number of individual dwelling units within a given Mobile Home Park SIZE describes its physical size.

• Demographic Analysis: By referring to NAICS_CODE & NAICS_DESC columns ,you'll get an idea about the associated industries and business activities in the vicinity of each park.

• Geographical Analysis: The LATITUDE and LONGITUDE coordinates allow you to map out mobile home parks on various GIS (Geographic Information System) platforms. You can analyze the distribution of mobile home parks across different states, cities, or counties.

• Emergency Preparedness: ...

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 2 cities in the Park County, MT by Multi-Racial Asian population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Multi-Racial Asian Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Park County, MT by their Multi-Racial Asian population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Multi-Racial Asian Population: The Multi-Racial Asian population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Multi-Racial Asian. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Park County Multi-Racial Asian Population: This tells us how much of the entire Park County, MT Multi-Racial Asian population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.