9 datasets found
  1. a

    Somerset County Census Block Groups (Page Size: Poster) Map Document

    • hub.arcgis.com
    Updated Aug 9, 2023
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Somerset County GIS (2023). Somerset County Census Block Groups (Page Size: Poster) Map Document [Dataset]. https://hub.arcgis.com/documents/8c19b4cf2c4f4313b5f2690f740fdd56
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Aug 9, 2023
    Dataset authored and provided by
    Somerset County GIS
    License

    MIT Licensehttps://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    The document is a downloadable PDF GIS map document of Somerset County’s 2020 Census Block Group Boundaries. The page size is set to Poster (24 X 36). The map was last updated on August 2023 by the Somerset County Office of GIS Services.

  2. a

    Somerset County Census Tracts (Page Size: Poster) Map Document

    • hub.arcgis.com
    Updated Aug 9, 2023
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Somerset County GIS (2023). Somerset County Census Tracts (Page Size: Poster) Map Document [Dataset]. https://hub.arcgis.com/documents/f43512102c064dbb9f2a6af9021b5417
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Aug 9, 2023
    Dataset authored and provided by
    Somerset County GIS
    License

    MIT Licensehttps://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    The document is a downloadable PDF GIS map document of Somerset County’s 2020 Census Tract Boundaries. The page size is set to Poster (24 X 36). The map was last updated on August 2023 by the Somerset County Office of GIS Services.

  3. Household Structure Census Data

    • figshare.com
    txt
    Updated May 31, 2023
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Maja Založnik (2023). Household Structure Census Data [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5415055.v2
    Explore at:
    txtAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    May 31, 2023
    Dataset provided by
    figshare
    Figsharehttp://figshare.com/
    Authors
    Maja Založnik
    License

    Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    Summary of hosuehold types in 22 countries from IPUMS dataSee github repo for code. See pdf of poster for full factsheet.

  4. g

    Canada's Population Density

    • gimi9.com
    • ouvert.canada.ca
    • +2more
    Updated May 10, 2012
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    (2012). Canada's Population Density [Dataset]. https://gimi9.com/dataset/ca_11325935-3af3-543e-80d4-8cf6cb4900e2
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    May 10, 2012
    Area covered
    Canada
    Description

    Contained within the Atlas of Canada Poster Map Series, is a poster showing population density across Canada. There is a relief base to the map on top of which is shown all populated areas of Canada where the population density is great than 0.4 persons per square kilometer. This area is then divided into five colour classes of population density based on Statistics Canada's census divisions.

  5. Survey data on the demographics, motivations, mental-health issues and...

    • zenodo.org
    • data.niaid.nih.gov
    csv
    Updated Jan 24, 2020
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    He Yu; Markel Vigo; Markel Vigo; He Yu (2020). Survey data on the demographics, motivations, mental-health issues and regrets of r/RoastMe posters [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1344712
    Explore at:
    csvAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    Jan 24, 2020
    Dataset provided by
    Zenodohttp://zenodo.org/
    Authors
    He Yu; Markel Vigo; Markel Vigo; He Yu
    License

    Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    Dataset including the data analysed in the "r/RoastMe: Characterising Self-Requested Online Mocking" paper describing the demographics, motivations, mental-health issues and consequences of posting on the r/RoastMe subreddit.

  6. a

    Somerset County Zip Codes (Page Size: Poster) Map Document

    • hub.arcgis.com
    Updated Aug 9, 2023
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Somerset County GIS (2023). Somerset County Zip Codes (Page Size: Poster) Map Document [Dataset]. https://hub.arcgis.com/documents/88a4c2c08c754b169252ecbe8b5a7e98
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Aug 9, 2023
    Dataset authored and provided by
    Somerset County GIS
    License

    MIT Licensehttps://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    The document is a downloadable PDF GIS map document of Somerset County’s 2020 Census Zip Code Boundaries. The page size is set to Poster (24 X 36). The map was last updated on August 2023 by the Somerset County Office of GIS Services.

  7. Survey, waiver, and data evaluating human-nature connection in urban parks

    • data.niaid.nih.gov
    • search.dataone.org
    • +2more
    zip
    Updated Nov 15, 2023
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Sheryl Hayes Hursh (2023). Survey, waiver, and data evaluating human-nature connection in urban parks [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h70rxwdqr
    Explore at:
    zipAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    Nov 15, 2023
    Dataset provided by
    University of Wisconsin–Madison
    Authors
    Sheryl Hayes Hursh
    License

    https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.htmlhttps://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html

    Description

    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 visitors’ HNC as a function of their (1) literacy and sentiment about wildlife species, (2) park experience, (3) number and frequency of nine childhood and adult recreation experiences, and (4) demographics. Across the park response groups, the number and frequency of childhood and adult recreation experiences was significantly associated with HNC, and this positive association persisted in multiple recreation activities. Furthermore, species literacy and sentiment, visiting a park for 'Nature', and frequent and extended visitation also was significantly associated with HNC by park type. Our research demonstrates the importance of lifelong recreation experiences in the development and enhancement of HNC and provides evidence for differences in the expression of HNC associated with particular attributes of urban park visitors and their views of wildlife. Methods 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).
    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 mixed forest ecosystems with open grass areas and low levels of pavement and structural development. Conservation parks contain native grasslands whereas community parks may contain native grasslands and/or mowed turf. By definition, conservation parks are managed to protect native plant and wildlife species, resulting in the inclusion of vegetation and management practices supporting that objective (City of Madison Parks Division, 2022). As a result of their conservation status, recreation therein is limited to physical activities such as hiking and snowshoeing and nature-based activities such as watching birds / wildlife and photography. Dogs are not allowed in conservation parks. Community parks are designed to provide a variety of physical, social, and cultural opportunities, including athletic fields and courts, playgrounds, and picnic shelters. Community parks allow dogs that are leashed and licensed (City of Madison Parks Division, 2022).
    Study Population and Survey We conducted an online survey to park visitors in three conservation parks and three community parks in Madison. Our research design was approved by the University of Wisconsin Education and Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board as exempted research. We developed the survey in Google Forms and administered it in the parks using a park-specific quick response (QR) code printed either (1) on posters that were statically accessible to park visitors throughout the study period or (2) on postcards dynamically handed to park visitors at selected times during the study period. The posters were visible outdoors in all six parks from 2021-09-04 through 2021-10-24 (high-use fall period) and from 2022-06-09 through 2022-08-24 (high-use summer period). Postcards were distributed in the six parks on four Saturdays in both September and July from 10.00 to 12.00. These dates and times were selected to coincide with the days and times with the highest number of park visitors, the availability of surveyors, and the approval of the Madison City Parks Division. Each postcard had a unique three-digit number required to access the online survey. Adults (18 years or older) were approached by the surveyor (lead author and/or student assistants trained in research ethics and project specifics) and invited to participate. After verbally agreeing to participate (standard approach for exempted research), each potential respondent was asked three questions to check for nonresponse bias: (1) zip code, (2) year of birth, and (3) main reason for visitation. For poster and postcard respondents who continued on to take the online survey, the first question was a screening for informed consent, with only those who actively acknowledged consent continuing into the study’s content questions.
    The online survey consisted of 30 questions, grouped into four categories: (1) literacy and sentiment about wildlife species, (2) recreation and park experience, (3) HNC, and (4) demographics. For species literacy and sentiment, respondents were asked questions evaluating (1) the correct photographic identification of six mammal species, each considered a generalist and likely present in the study parks, and (2) visitor sentiment about each species (Figure 2). For recreation activity, respondents were asked questions about (1) the number and frequency of childhood and adult experiences with bird / wildlife watching, camping, canoeing / kayaking, fishing, gardening, hiking, hunting, nature photography, and picnicking; (2) the main reason for visitation; (3) prior visitation; (4) length of visit; and (5) distance of residence to the park. For HNC, the abbreviated six-item short form of the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-6) was used, with four statements from NR-Self (1-4) and two statements from NR-Experience (5 and 6):

    My connection to nature and the environment is a part of my spirituality. My relationship to nature is an important part of who I am. I feel very connected to all living things and the earth. I always think about how my actions affect the environment. My ideal vacation spot would be a remote, wilderness area. I take notice of wildlife wherever I am.

    Demographic questions included age group, educational level, and gender. The survey responses were in the form of a short answer (only identification of species), exclusionary checkboxes, or a 5-point Likert scale response (“Never” to “Very Often” or “Disagree Strongly” to “Agree Strongly”). Wildlife literacy and sentiment questions were accompanied by a corresponding species-specific color photo (Figure 2). Species sentiment was measured by species-specific exclusionary responses: 'I am happy they live at the park’, ‘I think they are important for the park ecosystem', 'I am concerned about their impact on human safety', 'I am concerned that they bring disease', 'I think they are a nuisance', or 'I am unsure how I feel or do not care’. We piloted the survey with a focus group before administering it in the six parks to identify possible issues such as unclear language or challenges in viewing on mobile devices and adjusted our final survey accordingly. All survey responses were anonymous.
    Analysis Initial exploratory analysis included a random effect for park type (community and conservation) and a random effect and interaction term for survey type (postcard and poster). The type of park was a significant factor, and the models afterwards were separated into two model sets, one for community park visitors and one for conservation park visitors. A random effect was included for the parks sampled (3 community parks or 3 conservation parks) within the corresponding model set. The type of survey was not a significant random effect, and the data of each type of survey were combined based on the type of park. No differences were found between the potential and actual respondents by postcard with respect to zip code, year of birth, and main reason for visitation. This suggests that nonresponse bias was unlikely.
    Mixed-effects linear models were applied using the ‘lme’ function in the 'nlme' package (v3. 1-152; Pinheiro et al., 2021) of the R software, version 4.2.1 (R Core Team, 2019). As our work forwards investigation on the specific factors associated with HNC (using the mean NR-6 score of a respondent) rather than the conventional application of NR-6 as a predictor of pro-environmental behavior or self-assessed well-being, we evaluated factors independently rather than collectively. Separate models were developed for community and conservation park survey data to evaluate HNC as a function of factors within four categories: (1) species literacy and positive species sentiment; (2) number, frequency, and type of outdoor recreation activities of childhood and adulthood; (3) main reason for visitation, prior visitation, length of visit, and distance of residence to the park; and (4) demographic factors (age category, educational level, and gender). Species literacy was calculated as the average of responses recorded in six

  8. u

    Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire 2003, Baseline Survey on Poverty,...

    • microdata.unhcr.org
    • catalog.ihsn.org
    • +3more
    Updated May 19, 2021
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    EDI Ltd (Economic Development Initiatives) (2021). Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire 2003, Baseline Survey on Poverty, Welfare and Services in Kagera Rural Districts - Tanzania [Dataset]. https://microdata.unhcr.org/index.php/catalog/427
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    May 19, 2021
    Dataset authored and provided by
    EDI Ltd (Economic Development Initiatives)
    Time period covered
    2003
    Area covered
    Tanzania
    Description

    Abstract

    The Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) currently constitutes one of the largest socio-economic household survey databases on Tanzania. Since 2003 EDI has interviewed roughly 20,000 households in 35 different districts. For 9 districts repeat surveys have been organised to track changes over time.

    Rationale: Absence of district level survey data does not rhyme with the devolution of power to districts. Tanzania is undergoing a decentralisation process whereby each of its roughly 128 districts is becoming an increasingly important policy actor. A district taking on this challenge needs accurate information to monitor and develop its own policies. Much relevant information is currently not available as national statistics are not representative at district level and many of the routine data collection mechanisms are still under development. CWIQ then provides an attractive, one-stop survey-based method to collect basic development indicators. Furthermore, the survey results can be disseminated - through Swahili briefs and posters - to a district's population; thus increasing the extent to which people are able to hold their local governments accountable. Exciting new ground is being broken on such population-wide dissemination by the Prime Minister's Office.

    Methodology: The data are collected through a small 10-page questionnaire, called the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ). The questionnaire and data software constitute an off-the-shelf survey package developed by the World Bank to produce standardised monitoring indicators of welfare. The questionnaire is purposively concise and is designed to collect information on household demographics, employment, education, health and nutrition as well as utilisation and satisfaction with social services. Questionnaires are scannable, with interviewers shading bubbles and writing numbers later recognised by the scanning software. The data system is fully automated allowing the results to roll out within weeks of the fieldwork.

    Funding: projects are typically funded by organisations that care about making decentralisation work in Tanzania. CWIQ is a method to promote evidence-based policy formulation and debate in the district and a tool for the population to hold their local governments accountable. With funding from the RNE (Royal Netherlands Embassy) and SNV (Stichting Nederlands Vrijwilligers), CWIQ surveys were implemented between 2003-2005 in 16 districts. In 2006/07 PMO-RALG (Prime Minister's Office - Regional Administration and Local Government) commissioned EDI to cover a further 28 districts. In 9 of these districts this constituted a repeat survey and thus a unique opportunity arises to monitor changes that occurred in the district over this time period.

    Dissemination: EDI disseminated the results of CWIQ on posters and briefs to district level stakeholders (councillors, district officials, NGOs, CBOs, Advocacy Groups, MPs, 'interested citizens', etc.), with the aim at district level, to: (i) promote evidence-based policy debate, (ii) promote evidence-based policy formulation, (iii) provide tools for district level M&E and (iv) increase accountability of LGA to citizens.

    Public Domain: Currently in the public domain are (i) all CWIQ reports - note that Shinyanga 2004 and Kagera 2003 reports are organised into one region-wide report (ii) Swahili and English briefs for 5 pilot dissemination districts funded by the Prime Minister's Office - and (iii) raw data for all CWIQs conducted between 2003 and 2007.

    Geographic coverage

    Five rural districts of Kagera: Ngara, Biharamulo, Muleba, Bukoba Rural and Karagwe.

    Analysis unit

    • Households
    • Individuals

    Kind of data

    Sample survey data [ssd]

    Sampling procedure

    Data from the 2002 Population and Housing Census was used to select 15 households in 30 Enumeration areas in each rural district of the Kagera region. This brings the total number of households to 450 per district or 2,250 at rural regional level. Selection of households did not include refugee camps. Households were further stratified into rural and peri-urban areas and given statistical weights reflecting the number of households they represent.

    Mode of data collection

    Face-to-face [f2f]

    Cleaning operations

    Due to logistical constraints the completed questionnaires could not be scanned and automatically analysed through CWIQ software. This meant that the lay-out of the questionnaire had to be redesigned slightly to allow easy manual data entry. In order to avoid any problems with coding, missing variables, outliers etc. and to keep continuous thorough checks throughout the data analysis process, all tables and figures were manually produced and assessed for consistency with the data.

  9. w

    Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire 2006-2007, Survey on Poverty, Welfare...

    • microdata.worldbank.org
    • dev.ihsn.org
    • +2more
    Updated Sep 26, 2013
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    EDI Ltd (Economic Development Initiatives) (2013). Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire 2006-2007, Survey on Poverty, Welfare and Services - Tanzania [Dataset]. https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/1536
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Sep 26, 2013
    Dataset authored and provided by
    EDI Ltd (Economic Development Initiatives)
    Time period covered
    2006 - 2007
    Area covered
    Tanzania
    Description

    Abstract

    The Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) currently constitutes one of the largest socio-economic household survey databases on Tanzania. Since 2003 EDI has interviewed roughly 20,000 households in 35 different districts. For 9 districts repeat surveys were organised to track changes over time.

    Rationale: Absence of district level survey data does not rhyme with the devolution of power to districts. Tanzania is undergoing a decentralisation process whereby each of its roughly 128 districts is becoming an increasingly important policy actor. A district taking on this challenge needs accurate information to monitor and develop its own policies. Much relevant information is currently not available as national statistics are not representative at district level and many of the routine data collection mechanisms are still under development. CWIQ then provides an attractive, one-stop survey-based method to collect basic development indicators. Furthermore, the survey results can be disseminated - through Swahili briefs and posters - to a district's population; thus increasing the extent to which people are able to hold their local governments accountable. Exciting new ground is being broken on such population-wide dissemination by the Prime Minister's Office.

    Methodology: The data are collected through a small 10-page questionnaire, called the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ). The questionnaire and data software constitute an off-the-shelf survey package developed by the World Bank to produce standardised monitoring indicators of welfare. The questionnaire is purposively concise and is designed to collect information on household demographics, employment, education, health and nutrition as well as utilisation and satisfaction with social services. Questionnaires are scannable, with interviewers shading bubbles and writing numbers later recognised by the scanning software. The data system is fully automated allowing the results to roll out within weeks of the fieldwork.

    Funding: projects are typically funded by organisations that care about making decentralisation work in Tanzania. CWIQ is a method to promote evidence-based policy formulation and debate in the district and a tool for the population to hold their local governments accountable. With funding from the RNE (Royal Netherlands Embassy) and SNV (Stichting Nederlands Vrijwilligers), CWIQ surveys were implemented between 2003-2005 in 16 districts. In 2006/07 PMO-RALG (Prime Minister's Office - Regional Administration and Local Government) commissioned EDI to cover a further 28 districts. In 9 of these districts this constituted a repeat survey and thus a unique opportunity arises to monitor changes that occurred in the district over this time period.

    Dissemination: EDI disseminated the results of CWIQ on posters and briefs to district level stakeholders (councillors, district officials, NGOs, CBOs, Advocacy Groups, MPs, 'interested citizens', etc.), with the aim at district level, to: (i) promote evidence-based policy debate, (ii) promote evidence-based policy formulation, (iii) provide tools for district level M&E and (iv) increase accountability of LGA to citizens.

    Geographic coverage

    Subnational

    Analysis unit

    • Households
    • Individuals

    Kind of data

    Sample survey data [ssd]

    Sampling procedure

    The CWIQ surveys were sampled to be representative at district level. Data from the 2002 Census was used to put together a list of all villages in each district. In the first stage of the sampling process villages were chosen proportional to their population size. In a second stage the subvillage (kitongoji) was chosen within the village through simple random sampling. In the selected sub-village (also referred to as cluster or enumeration area), all households were listed and 15 households were randomly selected. In total 450 households in 30 clusters were visited. All households were given statistical weights reflecting the number of households that they represent.

    Mode of data collection

    Face-to-face [f2f]

    Research instrument

    CWIQ is an off-the-shelf survey package developed by the World Bank to produce standardised monitoring indicators of welfare. The questionnaire is purposively concise and is designed to collect information on household demographics, employment, education, health and nutrition, as well as utilisation of and satisfaction with social services. An extra section on governance and satisfaction with people in public office was added specifically for this survey.

    The standardised nature of the questionnaire allows comparison between districts and regions within and across countries, as well as monitoring change in a district or region over time.

    The 2006/7 questionnaire is in Swahili, but it closely follows the 2000 generic CWIQ questionnaire, which is included in external resources, and all variables and values are labeled in English.

    Cleaning operations

    The data entry was done by scanning the questionnaires, to minimise data entry errors and thus ensure high quality in the final dataset.

  10. Not seeing a result you expected?
    Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.

Share
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
Email
Click to copy link
Link copied
Close
Cite
Somerset County GIS (2023). Somerset County Census Block Groups (Page Size: Poster) Map Document [Dataset]. https://hub.arcgis.com/documents/8c19b4cf2c4f4313b5f2690f740fdd56

Somerset County Census Block Groups (Page Size: Poster) Map Document

Explore at:
Dataset updated
Aug 9, 2023
Dataset authored and provided by
Somerset County GIS
License

MIT Licensehttps://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
License information was derived automatically

Description

The document is a downloadable PDF GIS map document of Somerset County’s 2020 Census Block Group Boundaries. The page size is set to Poster (24 X 36). The map was last updated on August 2023 by the Somerset County Office of GIS Services.

Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu