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

Please Note: Community Reporting Areas (CRA) have been updated to follow the 2020 census tract lines which resulted in minor changes to some boundary conditions. They have also been extended into water areas to allow the assignment of CRAs to overwater housing and businesses. To exclude the water polygons from a map choose the filter, water=0.Community reporting areas (CRAs) are designed to address a gap that existed in city geography. The task of reporting citywide information at a "community-like level" across all departments was either not undertaken or it was handled in inconsistent ways across departments. The CRA geography provides a "common language" for geographic description of the city for reporting purposes. Therefore, this geography may be used by departments for geographic reporting and tracking purposes, as appropriate. The U.S. Census Bureau census tract geography was chosen as the basis of the CRA geography due to their stability through time and link to widely-used demographic data.The following criteria for a CRA geography were defined for this effort:no overlapping areascomplete coverage of the citysuitable scale to represent neighborhood areas/conditionsreasonably stable over timeconsistent with census geographyrelatively easy to use in a data contextfamiliar system of common place namesrespects neighborhood district geography to the extent possibleThe following existing geographies were reviewed during this effort:neighborhood planning areas (DON)neighborhood districts (DON/CNC/Neighborhood District Councils)city sectors/neighborhood plan implementation areas (DON)urban centers/urban villages (DPD)population sub-areas (DPD)Neighborhood Map Atlas (City Clerk)Census tract geographytopographyvarious other geographic information sources related to neighborhood areas and common place namesThis is not an attempt to identify neighborhood boundaries as defined by neighborhoods themselves.

This data layer is an element of the Oregon GIS Framework. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation.

Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. 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 and situations 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. For the 2010 Census and beyond, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area.

This dataset and map service provides information on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) low to moderate income areas. The term Low to Moderate Income, often referred to as low-mod, has a specific programmatic context within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. HUD uses special tabulations of Census data to determine areas where at least 51% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). This dataset and map service contains the following layer.

NJDOT has revised the New Jersey urban area based upon the 2020 U.S. Census urban area boundaries. The U.S. Census defines an Urbanized Area as any area with a population >= 5,000. Under the 2020 Urban Area definition, Urban Clusters are no longer a classification. FHWA, however, has slightly different criteria for what defines an urban area. Under FHWA, an Urban Area is >= 5,000, with Small Urban Areas 5,000-49,999 and Urbanized Areas >= 50,000. NJDOT followed the FHWA urban area definitions for this urban area update. To perform this update, NJDOT used the 2020 US Census urban areas greater than 5,000 in population. Since census urban area boundaries are based upon census block boundaries, which can be irregular, NJDOT extended outward the urban area ("smoothed") to the nearest road, stream, political boundary, or manmade feature. When a roadway is used as the adjusted boundary, the following buffers will be applied to include the right of way of the roadway: 50’ from undivided roadway centerlines (single centerline) and 80’ from divided roadway centerlines (dual centerline). Where there was no obvious boundary to smooth to, the census boundary was retained. NJDOT also expanded the urban area to include any densely developed areas not included in the 2020 census urban areas. The urban area update underwent a thorough public review and comment period. Representatives from NJDOT and the 3 metropolitan planning organizations (NJTPA, SJTPO, and DVRPC) met during various phases of the project to review the updated urban area. All comments were logged into an Urban Area Comment Tracking Form, and an official NJDOT response was provided for each comment. Further revisions were made to the urban area based upon comments from FHWA. These revisions were limited in scope and consisted of the following: 1) Smoothed the urban boundary outward at water boundaries: 1000’ from corporate boundary / shoreline for coastal areas and 500’ from corporate boundary / shoreline for bay areas. 2) Utilize Census State Boundary for the state boundary except for coastal boundaries.

The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) was a U.S. federal agency that graded mortgage investment risk of neighborhoods across the U.S. between 1935 and 1940. HOLC residential security maps standardized neighborhood risk appraisal methods that included race and ethnicity, pioneering the institutional logic of residential “redlining.” The Mapping Inequality Project digitized the HOLC mortgage security risk maps from the 1930s. We overlaid the HOLC maps with 2010 and 2020 census tracts for 142 cities across the U.S. using ArcGIS and determined the proportion of HOLC residential security grades contained within the boundaries. We assigned a numerical value to each HOLC risk category as follows: 1 for “A” grade, 2 for “B” grade, 3 for “C” grade, and 4 for “D” grade. We calculated a historic redlining score from the summed proportion of HOLC residential security grades multiplied by a weighting factor based on area within each census tract. A higher score means greater redlining of the census tract. Continuous historic redlining score, assessing the degree of “redlining,” as well as 4 equal interval divisions of redlining, can be linked to existing data sources by census tract identifier allowing for one form of structural racism in the housing market to be assessed with a variety of outcomes. The 2010 files are set to census 2010 tract boundaries. The 2020 files use the new census 2020 tract boundaries, reflecting the increase in the number of tracts from 12,888 in 2010, to 13,488 in 2020. Use the 2010 HRS with decennial census 2010 or ACS 2010-2019 data. As of publication (10/15/2020) decennial census 2020 data for the P1 (population) and H1 (housing) files are available from census.

The 1950 Census population schedules were created by the Bureau of the Census in an attempt to enumerate every person living in the United States on April 1, 1950, although some persons were missed. The 1950 census population schedules were digitized by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and released publicly on April 1, 2022. The 1950 Census enumeration district maps contain maps of counties, cities, and other minor civil divisions that show enumeration districts, census tracts, and related boundaries and numbers used for each census. The coverage is nation wide and includes territorial areas. The 1950 Census enumeration district descriptions contain written descriptions of census districts, subdivisions, and enumeration districts.

Race is a social and historical construct, and the racial categories counted by the census change over time so the process of constructing stable racial categories for 120 years out of census data required complex and imperfect decisions. We created a set of 5 racial/ethnic categories that enabled us to can see changes over this time period even as census categories changed over time. Since race is a social construction and the US Census Bureau used different categories over the 20th century to count populations, these maps offer only a partial window into this complex and contested process. For 1900-1940, we digitized the Enumeration District (ED) linework and processed IPUMS NHGIS (University of Minnesota) data to produce layers for each decade that display the most important racial/ethnic groups residing in Inland Southern California in the early 20th century. For 1960-2020, we processed IPUMS race data and used their census tract geometries. We do not yet have data for 1950.We used historical research on early 20th century southern California to construct historic racial categories for 1900-1940 from the IPUMS full count data, which allowed us to track groups that were not formally classified as racial groups in some census decades like Mexican, but which were important racial categories in southern California. Detailed explanation of how we constructed these categories and the rationale we used for the decisions we made can be found here. We tried to preserve some of the distinctive categories we used in different decades in the popups (so for instance you will see Mexican in early decades and Hispanic in later ones, but we renamed others into broader categories like Spanish Surname population in 1960-1970). We only included here on this data categories that allowed at least some comparison across this long time space so excluded some categories like other or multi-ethnic that only appeared periodically in the data. You can see the ways we grouped available data by downloading this data dictionary. You can also find some more explanation of these categories in our Mapping Race in the IE 1900-2020 Experience Builder which presents accessible maps for non GIS experts. If you are interested in mapping some of the other racial or ethnic groups in the early 20th century, you can explore and map the full range of variables we have created in the People's History of the IE IE_ED1900-1940 Race Hispanic Marriage and Age Feature layer. Suggested Citation: Tilton, Jennifer, Lisa Benvenuti, Tessa VanRy & Ashley Roman. People's History Race Dot Density Map 1900-2020. A People's History of the Inland Empire Census Project using IPUMS Data. Program in Race and Ethnic Studies University of Redlands, Center for Spatial Studies University of Redlands, UCR Public History. 2025. 

The following data were used for the Department of Water Resources' (DWR) Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping Tool: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. The data source is from the US Census (American Community Survey), that may include attribute table additions by DWR. The DAC Mapping Tool was designed, and the related datasets made publicly available, to assist in the evaluation of DACs throughout the state, as may relate to the various Grant Programs within the Financial Assistance Branch (FAB) at DWR. The definition of DAC may vary by grant program (within FAB, DWR or grant programs of other public agencies). As such, users should be familiar with the specific requirements for meeting DAC status, based on the particular grant solicitation/program of interest.

For more information related to the Grant Programs within the Financial Assistance Branch, visit: https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/Sustainable-Groundwater

Additional questions or requests for information related to the DAC datasets (or the DAC Mapping Tool) should be directed to: dwr_irwm@water.ca.gov.

For more information on DWR's FAB programs, please visit: https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme ( https://ngda-cadastre-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/ ). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all open space public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, permanent and long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g., 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of U.S. public land and other protected areas, compiling “best available” data provided by managing agencies and organizations. PAD-US provides a full inventory geodatabase, spatial analysis, statistics, data downloads, web services, poster maps, and data submissions included in efforts to track global progress toward biodiversity protection. PAD-US integrates spatial data to ensure public lands and other protected areas from all jurisdictions are represented. PAD-US version 4.0 includes new and updated data from the following data providers. All other data were transferred from previous versions of PAD-US. Federal updates - The USGS remains committed to updating federal fee owned lands data and major designation changes in regular PAD-US updates, where authoritative data provided directly by managing agencies are available or alternative data sources are recommended. Revisions associated with the federal estate in this version include updates to the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, management designations, and proclamation boundaries), with authoritative data from 7 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The federal theme in PAD-US is developed in close collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Lands Working Group (FLWG, https://ngda-gov-units-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/pages/federal-lands-workgroup/ ). This includes improved the representation of boundaries and attributes for the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, in collaboration with agency data-stewards, in response to feedback from the PAD-US Team and stakeholders. Additionally, National Cemetery boundaries were added using geospatial boundary data provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and NASA boundaries were added using data contained in the USGS National Boundary Dataset (NBD). State Updates - USGS is committed to building capacity in the state data steward network and the PAD-US Team to increase the frequency of state land and NGO partner updates, as resources allow. State Lands Workgroup ( https://ngda-gov-units-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/pages/state-lands-workgroup ) is focused on improving protected land inventories in PAD-US, increase update efficiency, and facilitate local review. PAD-US 4.0 included updates and additions from the following seventeen states and territories: California (state, local, and nonprofit fee); Colorado (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); Georgia (state and local fee); Kentucky (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); Maine (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); Montana (state, local, and nonprofit fee); Nebraska (state fee); New Jersey (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); New York (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); North Carolina (state, local, and nonprofit fee); Pennsylvania (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); Puerto Rico (territory fee); Tennessee (land trust fee); Texas (state, local, and nonprofit fee); Virginia (state, local, and nonprofit fee); West Virginia (state, local, and nonprofit fee); and Wisconsin (state fee data). Additionally, the following datasets were incorporated from NGO data partners: Trust for Public Land (TPL) Parkserve (new fee and easement data); The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Lands (fee owned by TNC); TNC Northeast Secured Areas; Ducks Unlimited (land trust fee); and the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED). All state and NGO easement submissions are provided to NCED. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/science/protected-areas . For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/science/protected-areas . For more information about data aggregation please review the PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/pad-us-data-manual . A version history of PAD-US updates is summarized below (See https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/pad-us-data-history/ for more information): 1) First posted - April 2009 (Version 1.0 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 2) Revised - May 2010 (Version 1.1 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 3) Revised - April 2011 (Version 1.2 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 4) Revised - November 2012 (Version 1.3) https://doi.org/10.5066/F79Z92XD 5) Revised - May 2016 (Version 1.4) https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ 6) Revised - September 2018 (Version 2.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE 7) Revised - September 2020 (Version 2.1) https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT 8) Revised - January 2022 (Version 3.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B 9) Revised - April 2024 (Version 4.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P96WBCHS Comparing protected area trends between PAD-US versions is not recommended without consultation with USGS as many changes reflect improvements to agency and organization GIS systems, or conservation and recreation measure classification, rather than actual changes in protected area acquisition on the ground.

This map service displays all air-related layers used in the USEPA Community/Tribal-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C/T-FERST) mapping application (http://cfpub.epa.gov/cferst/index.cfm). The following data sources (and layers) are contained in this service: USEPA's 2005 National-Scale Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) data. Data are shown at the census tract level (2000 census tract boundaries, US Census Bureau) for Cumulative Cancer and Non-Cancer risks (Neurological and Respiratory) from 139 air toxics. In addition, individual pollutant estimates of Ambient Concentration, Exposure Concentration, Cancer, and Non-Cancer risks (Neurological and Respiratory) are provided for: Acetaldehyde, Acrolein, Arsenic, Benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, Chromium, Diesel PM, Formaldehyde, Lead, Naphthalene, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH). The original Access tables were downloaded from USEPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/tables.html. The data classification (defined interval) for this map service was developed for USEPA's Office of Research and Development's (ORD) Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST) per guidance provided by OAR. The 2005 NATA provides information on 177 of the 187 Clean Air Act air toxics (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/2005polls.pdf) plus diesel particulate matter (diesel PM was assessed for non-cancer only). For additional information about NATA, go to http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/nata_tmd.pdf or contact Ted Palma, USEPA (palma.ted@epa.gov). NATA data disclaimer: USEPA strongly cautions that these modeling results are most meaningful when viewed at the state or national level, and should not be used to draw conclusions about local exposures or risks (e.g., to compare local areas, to identify the exact location of "hot spots", or to revise or design emission reduction programs). Substantial uncertainties with the input data for these models may cause the results to misrepresent actual risks, especially at the census tract level. However, we believe the census tract data and maps can provide a useful approximation of geographic patterns of variation in risk within counties. For example, a cluster of census tracts with higher estimated risks may suggest the existence of a "hot spot," although the specific tracts affected will be uncertain. More refined assessments based on additional data and analysis would be needed to better characterize such risks at the tract level. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/countyxls/cancer_risk02_county_042009.xls). Note that these modeled estimates are derived from outdoor sources only; indoor sources are not included in these examples, but may be significant in some cases. The modeled exposure estimates are for a median individual in the geographic area shown. Note that in some cases the estimated relationship between human exposure and health effect may be calculated as a high end estimate, and thus may be more likely to overestimate than underestimate actual health effects for the median individual in the geographic area shown. Other limitations to consider when looking at the results are detailed on the EPA 2005 NATA website. For these reasons, the NATA maps included in C-FERST are provided for screening purposes only. See the 2005 National Air Toxic Assessment website for recommended usage and limitations on the estimated cancer and noncancer data provided above. USEPA's NonAttainment areas data. C-FERST displays Ozone for 8-hour Ozone based on the 1997 standard for reporting and Particulate Matter PM-2.5 based on the 2006 standard for reporting. These are areas of the country where air pollution levels consistently exceed the national ambient air quality standards. Details about the USEPA's NonAttainment data are available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/index.html. Center of Disease Control's (CDC) Environmental Public Health Tracking (EPHT) data. Averaged over three years (2004 - 2006). The USEPA's ORD calculated a three-year average (2004 - 2006) using the values for Ozone (number of days with the maximum 8-hour average above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)) and PM 2.5 (annual ambient concentration). These data were extracted by the CDC from the USEPA's ambient air monitors and are displayed at the county level. USEPA received the Monitor and Modeled data from the CDC and calculated the three year average displayed in the web service. For more details about the CDC EPHT data, go to http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showHome.action.

This dataset was created primarily to map and track socioeconomic and demographic variables from the US Census Bureau from year 1940 to year 2010, by decade, within the City of Baltimore's Mayor's Office of Information Technology (MOIT) year 2010 neighborhood boundaries. The socioeconomic and demographic variables include the percent White, percent African American, percent owner occupied homes, percent vacant homes, the percentage of age 25 and older people with a high school education or greater, and the percentage of age 25 and older people with a college education or greater. Percent White and percent African American are also provided for year 1930. Each of the the year 2010 neighborhood boundaries were also attributed with the 1937 Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) definition of neighborhoods via spatial overlay. HOLC rated neighborhoods as A, B, C, D or Undefined. HOLC categorized the perceived safety and risk of mortgage refinance lending in metropolitan areas using a hierarchical grading scale of A, B, C, and D. A and B areas were considered the safest areas for federal investment due to their newer housing as well as higher earning and racially homogenous households. In contrast, C and D graded areas were viewed to be in a state of inevitable decline, depreciation, and decay, and thus risky for federal investment, due to their older housing stock and racial and ethnic composition. This policy was inherently a racist practice. Places were graded based on who lived there; poor areas with people of color were labeled as lower and less-than. HOLC's 1937 neighborhoods do not cover the entire extent of the year 2010 neighborhood boundaries. The neighborhood boundaries were also augmented to include which of the year 2017 Housing Market Typology (HMT) the 2010 neighborhoods fall within. Finally, the neighborhood boundaries were also augmented to include tree canopy and tree canopy change year 2007 to year 2015.

This web map displays data from the voter registration database as the percent of registered voters by census tract in King County, Washington. The data for this web map is compiled from King County Elections voter registration data for the years 2013-2019. The total number of registered voters is based on the geo-location of the voter's registered address at the time of the general election for each year. The eligible voting population, age 18 and over, is based on the estimated population increase from the US Census Bureau and the Washington Office of Financial Management and was calculated as a projected 6 percent population increase for the years 2010-2013, 7 percent population increase for the years 2010-2014, 9 percent population increase for the years 2010-2015, 11 percent population increase for the years 2010-2016 & 2017, 14 percent population increase for the years 2010-2018 and 17 percent population increase for the years 2010-2019. The total population 18 and over in 2010 was 1,517,747 in King County, Washington. The percentage of registered voters represents the number of people who are registered to vote as compared to the eligible voting population, age 18 and over. The voter registration data by census tract was grouped into six percentage range estimates: 50% or below, 51-60%, 61-70%, 71-80%, 81-90% and 91% or above with an overall 84 percent registration rate. In the map the lighter colors represent a relatively low percentage range of voter registration and the darker colors represent a relatively high percentage range of voter registration. PDF maps of these data can be viewed at King County Elections downloadable voter registration maps. The 2019 General Election Voter Turnout layer is voter turnout data by historical precinct boundaries for the corresponding year. The data is grouped into six percentage ranges: 0-30%, 31-40%, 41-50% 51-60%, 61-70%, and 71-100%. The lighter colors represent lower turnout and the darker colors represent higher turnout. The King County Demographics Layer is census data for language, income, poverty, race and ethnicity at the census tract level and is based on the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 year Average provided by the United States Census Bureau. Since the data is based on a survey, they are considered to be estimates and should be used with that understanding. The demographic data sets were developed and are maintained by King County Staff to support the King County Equity and Social Justice program. Other data for this map is located in the King County GIS Spatial Data Catalog, where data is managed by the King County GIS Center, a multi-department enterprise GIS in King County, Washington. King County has nearly 1.3 million registered voters and is the largest jurisdiction in the United States to conduct all elections by mail. In the map you can view the percent of registered voters by census tract, compare registration within political districts, compare registration and demographic data, verify your voter registration or register to vote through a link to the VoteWA, Washington State Online Voter Registration web page.

Climate change is projected to cause extensive plant range shifts, and in many cases such shifts already are underway. Most long-term studies of range shifts measure emergent changes in species distributions but not the underlying demographic patterns that shape them. To better understand species’ elevational range shifts and their underlying demographic processes, we use the powerful approach of rephotography, comparing historical (1978-82) and modern (2015-16) photographs taken along a 1000 m elevational gradient in theColorado Desert of Southern California. This approach allowed us to track demographic outcomes for 4263 individual plants of 11 long-lived, perennial species over the past ~36 years. All species showed an upward shift in mean elevation (average = 45 m), consistent with observed increasing temperature and severe drought in the region. We found that varying demographic processes underlaid these elevational shifts, with some species showing higher recruitment and some showing higher survival with increasing elevation. Species with faster life history rates (higher background recruitment and mortality rates) underwent larger elevational shifts. Our findings emphasize the importance of demography and life history in shaping range shift responses and future community composition, as well as the sensitivity of desert systems to climate change despite the typical ‘slow motion’ population dynamics of perennial desert plants. Methods We utilized photos originally taken by Dr. Wilbur Mayhew between 1977 and 1982 (Mayhew 1981), which we digitized from 35 mm slides stored at Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center (doi:10.21973/N3V66D). We relocated permanently marked sites where historical photos had been taken and rephotographed them using a Canon 5D Mark II camera and tripod in 2015 and 2016. We took one additional set of photos in April 2017 after the end of a multi-year drought, so that we could distinguish dormant from dead individuals of two drought-deciduous species (brittlebush, Encelia farinosa and white bursage, Ambrosia dumosa). We approximated the original view of the original photos as closely as possible in modern photos. For each photo view, we chose a single historical and modern photo for analysis based on resolution, contrast and coloration. The mean timespan between paired historical and modern photos was 36 years. We perfected the alignment between the paired historical and modern photos in Photoshop by making one photo semi-transparent, then rotating and resizing it while maintaining original aspect ratios. Data extraction We extracted data on 11 perennial species that appeared in 5+ sites. We extracted data from the photos in ArcGIS, arranging the paired photos as map layers. We created polygons to delimit a survey area close enough to the camera to identify species; these polygons serve as the “sites” in our subsequent analysis. In some cases, we collected data on larger-bodied or particularly conspicuous species, such as ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens) and creosote (Larrea tridentata), in a larger area including locations farther from the camera than for smaller, less conspicuous species. We recorded whether each plant underwent recruitment (absent historical, alive modern), mortality (alive historical, dead modern) or survival (alive both). We excluded plants that were dead in the historical period or with main stems outside the site polygon. In some cases we consulted other historical and modern photos of the same site to determine species identity or assess whether an individual was alive. We counted and measured clusters of agave (Agave deserti) and Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera) as single individuals. Rarely, we may have misidentified pygmy cedar (Peucephyllum schottii) for creosote where these species co-occur on steep slopes, since they have similar morphology and are difficult to distinguish from a distance. We measured individual relative change in plant size by measuring the height (perpendicular to the ground) and width (the largest horizontal extent of the plant perpendicular to the camera, i.e. canopy width) of surviving plants in both time periods, using the ruler tool in ArcGIS and focusing on woody biomass. When dead agave rosettes were surrounded by live rosettes, we did not include the width that was dead if it was >20% the total width. We calculated the relative change in height of each plant as (H1–H0) / H0, where H indicates plant height and the subscripts 0 and 1 indicate the historical and modern period, respectively. We used an equivalent equation for relative change in width. For some species at some sites, we could not track the fate of individuals between the two time periods. This most often occurred for narrow-bodied and relatively short-lived species (e.g. teddy bear cholla, Cylindropuntia bigelovii) in photo pairs that were difficult to perfectly align, thereby making it difficult to tell whether plants either survived, or died and were replaced by recruits. It also occurred when a large plant died and a new plant “appeared” in a spot that was previously hidden, such that we were unable to determine whether the second plant was a recruit or a surviving plant. We therefore designated two site types for each species: “trackable” sites – those where we could track the fate of at least one third of individuals of a given species over time, and “count-only” sites – those where we could track fewer than one third of individuals, and instead only counted individuals. Count-only sites were retained for analyses of mean elevation shifts but not demographic rates. Geophysical data We used Google Earth Pro “ground level view” to draw polygons matching the extent of the site polygons outlined in the photos. To do so, we first “stood” at the camera’s locality and angle, then used corresponding features (e.g. washes, large creosote, hills) to find the exact site, and finally dropped pins to mark polygon vertices. We used these polygons to extract data on each site’s size, as well as its mean elevation, aspect, slope and annual solar radiation (“insolation”) using USGS NED Contiguous US 1/3 arc-second digital elevation model (2013) in ArcGIS. We took the cosine of aspect to create linear values ranging from -1 (South) to 1 (North). Additional details Additional details on how these data were collected and processed can be found in the Methods and Supplementary Materials of Skikne et al. 2024. Contrasting demographic processes underlie uphill shifts in a desert ecosystem.

US Stroke Mortality in Adults Over 35

State, County, and Gender Data

By US Open Data Portal, data.gov [source]

About this dataset

This dataset contains stroke mortality data among US adults (35+) by state/territory and county. Learn more about the health of people within your own state or region, across genders and ethnicities. Reliable statistics even for small counties can be seen, thanks to 3-year averages, age-standardization, and spatial smoothing. Data sources such as the National Vital Statistics System give you all the data you need to get a detailed sense of your population's total cardiovascular health. With interactive maps created from this data also provided covering heart disease risks, death rates and hospital bed availability across each location in America, you can now gain a powerful perspective on how effective healthcare initiatives are making an impact in those who live there. Study up on the real cardiovascular conditions plaguing those around us today to make a real change in public health!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset contains stroke mortality data among US adults (35+) by state/territory and county. This data can be useful in helping identify areas where stroke mortality is high, and interventions to reduce mortality should be taken into account.

To access the dataset, you need to download it from Kaggle. The dataset consists of 18 columns including year, location description, geographic level, source of data, class of data values provided, topic of discussion with regard to stroke mortality rates (age-standardized), labels for stratification categories and stratifications used within the given age group when performing this analysis. The last 3 columns consist of geographical coordinates for each location (Y_lat & X_lon) as well as an overall georeferenced column (Georeferenced Column).

Once you have downloaded the dataset there are a few ways you can go about using it:

• You can perform a descriptive analysis on any particular column using methods such as summary statistics or distributions graphs;
• You can create your own maps or other visual representation based on the latitude/longitude columns;
• You could look at differences between states and counties/areas within states by subsetting out certain areas;
• Using statistical testing methods you could create inferential analyses that may lead to insights on why some areas seem more prone to higher levels of stroke mortality than others

Research Ideas

• Track county-level stroke mortality trends among US adults (35+) over time.
• Identify regions of higher stroke mortality risk and use that information to inform targeted, preventative health policies and interventions.
• Analyze differences in stroke mortality rates by gender, race/ethnicity, or geographic location to identify potential disparities in care access or outcomes for certain demographic groups

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

Unknown License - Please check the dataset description for more information.

Columns

File: csv-1.csv | Column name | Description | |:-------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------| | Year | Year of the data. (Integer) | | LocationAbbr | Abbreviation of the state or territory. (String) | | LocationDesc | Name of the state or territory. (String) | | GeographicLevel | Level of geographic detail. (String) | | DataSource | Source of the data. (String) | | Class | Classification of the data. (String) | | Topic | Topic of the data. (String) | | Data_Value | Numeric value associated with the topic. (Float) | | Data_Value_Unit | Unit used to express the data value. (String) | | Data_Value_Type | Type of data value. (String) | | Data_Value_Footnote_Symbol | Symbol associated with the data value footnote. (String) | | StratificationCategory1 | First category of stratification. (String) | | Stratification1 | First stratifica...

A shapefile for mapping data by Modified Zip Code Tabulation Areas (MODZCTA) in NYC, based on the 2010 Census ZCTA shapefile. MODZCTA are being used by the NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) for mapping COVID-19 Data.

One of the many challenges that social science researchers and practitioners face is the difficulty of relating data between census tracts which are re-delineated with each decennial census. While some methods of harmonizing or crosswalking data between census tracts exist, to provide additional avenues for merging these data, PD&R has released the HUD-USPS Census Tract Crosswalk Files. These unique files are derived from the USPS Vacancy Data which are regularly updated by the USPS which makes them uniquely positioned to describe human settlements patterns between census tract delineations. These data use the locations of ZIP+4 centroids, an extremely granular level of geography, the number of addresses of various types (residential, business, other, and total), and do not rely on ancillary data to map where population or households might be located.There are twelve types of crosswalk files available for download. The first six crosswalk files are used to allocate ZIP codes to Census Bureau geographies such as census tracts, counties, county subdivisions, Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), CBSA Divisions, and Congressional Districts. The last six are used to allocate from those same Census Bureau geographies to ZIP Codes. It is important to note that the relationship between the two types of crosswalk files is not perfectly inverse. That is to say, the ZIP to Tract crosswalk file cannot be used to allocate data from census tract geographies to ZIP codes. Instead, the Tract to ZIP crosswalk file must be used in that specific scenario.In addition to the crosswalk files, this dataset also includes screenshots of HUDs documentation and FAQ pages.

This dataset includes mapping data to track the socio-economic metrics associated with a number of projects funded through the Hurricane Sandy Coastal Resiliency Program. Project locations are found in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York. Data was collected from 2017 to 2020. The map data shows agricultural and cropland data, the area of influence at each site, the flooded areas around project sites, area with reduced flood depth because of the project, buildings and their position above and below water, concentrated animal feeding operations, emergency facilities, schools, correction facilities, natural gas processing plants, waste treatment plants, transportation data including data came from a variety of sources, including railways and roads, and watersheds. Data sources include the Department of Homeland Society, U.S. Census Bureau, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Government open data.

Click a census tract on the map to view the details. Click "Layers" to explore other demographic layers.The Racial and Social Equity Index combines information on race, ethnicity, and related demographics with data on socioeconomic and health disadvantages to identify where priority populations make up relatively large proportions of neighborhood residents. Click here for a User Guide.The Composite Index includes sub-indices of: Race, English Language Learners, and Origins Index ranks census tracts by an index of three measures weighted as follows: Persons of color (weight: 1.0) English language learner (weight: 0.5) Foreign born (weight: 0.5)Socioeconomic Disadvantage Index ranks census tracts by an index of two equally weighted measures: Income below 200% of poverty level Educational attainment less than a bachelor’s degreeHealth Disadvantage Index ranks census tracts by an index of seven equally weighted measures: Adults with no leisure-time physical activity Adults with diagnosed diabetes Adults with obesity Adults who reported mental health as not good Adults with asthma Low life expectancy at birth Adults with one or more disabilityThe index does not reflect population densities, nor does it show variation within census tracts which can be important considerations at a local level.Sources are as indicated below. Additional layers are updated annually by the Office of Planning and Community Development.Produced by City of Seattle Office of Planning & Community Development. For more information on the indices, including guidance for use, contact Diana Canzoneri (diana.canzoneri@seattle.gov).Get the data for this map from SeattleGeoDataSources: 2017-2021 5-Year American Community Survey Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau; 2020 Decennial Census, U.S. Census Bureau; modeled estimates from the Centers for Disease Control’ in the PLACES project; Washington State Department of Health’s Washington Tracking Network (WTN);, and estimates from the Public Health – Seattle & King County (based on the Community Health Assessment Tool).Notes: Language is for population age 5 and older. Educational attainment is for the population age 25 and over.Life expectancy is life expectancy at birth.Other health measures based on percentages of the adult population.

This data was compiled by the Washington Military Department on June 27, 2019. The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) information is summarized at the county level as well as at the census track/ county subdivision layer level. County level data was derived from the 2016 Office of Financial Management (OFM) study which provided an estimate of population with limited English proficiency at the state and county levels. The census tract data are derived from the 2015 census update and indicates language spoken at home and ability to speak English for those over five years old. All data displayed indicate a population of at least 1,000 or 5% of the population.LEPCountyv2 = Limited English Proficiency County version 2 – from OFM census dataLEPCSDv2 = Limited English Proficiency County Subdivision version 2 – data drawn from US Census 2010

LEPtractsv2 = Limited English Proficiency Census Tracts version 2 – data drawn from US Census 2010Attribute DescriptionCounty - County nameLanguage - Limited English Proficiency Language(s) spoken for the corresponding polygon - each Language is followed by a number to indicate a sequence number for each data fieldSym - Symbology field used to symbolize the polygons - holds the total count of LEP languages spoken for that polygonAFFGEOID - American Fact Finder Geospatial ID used to link tabular data to the polygons - consists of the -- Census block identifier; a concatenation of 2010 Census state FIPS code, 2010 Census county FIPS code, 2010 Census tract code, and 2010 Census block numberName - County Subdivision name from American Fact Finder (AFF) dataLanguage - Limited English Proficiency Language(s) spoken for the corresponding polygon - each Language is followed by a number to indicate a sequence number for each data fieldSym - Symbology field used to symbolize the polygons - holds the total count of LEP languages spoken for that polygonNAMELSAD10 2010 Census translated legal/statistical area description and the block group numberAFFGEOID - American Fact Finder Geospatial ID used to link tabular data to the polygons - consists of the -- Census block identifier; a concatenation of 2010 Census state FIPS code, 2010 Census county FIPS code, 2010 Census tract code, and 2010 Census block numberDisplay Label - Geographic name for each polygon from AFFSym - Symbology field used to symbolize the polygons - holds the total count of LEP languages spoken for that polygonLanguage - Limited English Proficiency Language(s) spoken for the corresponding polygon - each Language is followed by a number to indicate a sequence number for each data field