The field computer market, valued at $3,807 million in 2025, is projected to experience robust growth, driven by increasing adoption across various sectors. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.9% from 2025 to 2033 indicates a significant expansion, fueled primarily by the rising demand for ruggedized and durable computing devices in demanding environments like construction, agriculture, and logistics. Technological advancements, such as improved processing power, enhanced connectivity (5G, satellite), and integrated sensor technologies, are further bolstering market growth. The integration of advanced features like GPS, GIS mapping, and data analytics capabilities within field computers is transforming workflows and increasing efficiency, leading to higher adoption rates. Key players like Panasonic, Getac, and Trimble are continuously innovating to meet the evolving needs of diverse industries, with a focus on user-friendly interfaces and enhanced data security. The market is segmented based on factors such as device type, operating system, application, and end-user industry. While specific segment breakdowns aren't provided, it's reasonable to assume substantial growth within segments focused on advanced features and specific industry applications, particularly those sectors experiencing digital transformation.
Growth restraints could include the relatively high initial investment cost of specialized field computers compared to standard laptops or tablets, and the potential for technological obsolescence as new devices and software are introduced. However, the long-term benefits of increased productivity and improved data management are likely to outweigh these considerations, leading to continued market expansion over the forecast period. Regional variations in market penetration are expected, with developed regions showing higher initial adoption, followed by growth in emerging economies driven by infrastructure development and increased industrialization.

This paper underlines the task characteristics of the emergency management life cycle. Moreover, the characteristics of three ubiquitous technologies including RFID, handheld computers and GIS are discussed and further used as a criterion to evaluate their potential for emergency management tasks. Built on a rather loose interpretation of Task-technology Fit model, a conceptual model presented in this paper advocates that a technology that offers better features for task characteristics is more likely to be adopted in emergency management. Empirical findings presented in this paper reveal the significance of task characteristics and their role in evaluating the suitability of three ubiquitous technologies before their actual adoption in emergency management.

Updated for 2013-17: US Census American Community Survey data table for: COMPUTER AND INTERNET USAGE subject area. Provides information about: TYPES OF COMPUTERS IN HOUSEHOLD for the universe of: HOUSEHOLDS. These data are extrapolated estimates only, based on sampling; they are not actual complete counts. The data is based on 2010 Census Tracts. Table ACS_B28001_TYPECOMPUTERHSHLD contains both the Estimate value in the E item for the census topic and an adjacent M item which defines the Margin of Error for the value. The Margin of Error (MOE) is the plus/minus range for the item estimate value, where the range between the Estimate minus the Margin of Error and the Estimate plus the Margin of Error defines the 90% confidence interval of the item value. Many of the Margin of Error values are significant relative to the size of the Estimate value. This table contains 11 item(s) extracted from a larger sequence table. This extracted subset represents that portion of the sequence that is considered high priority. Other portions of this sequence that are not included can be identified in the data dictionary information provided in the Supplemental Information section. This table information is also provided as a customized layer file: B28001_AREA_TYPECOMPUTERHSHLD.lyr where the table information is joined to the 2010 TRACTS_AREA census geography on the GEOID item. Both the table and customized lyr file name do not contain the year descriptor (i.e. 2013-2017) for the current ACS series. This is intentional in order to maintain the same table name in each successive ACS update. The alias of each item's (E)stimate and (M)easure of Error value stores this year date information as beginning YY and ending YY, i.e., 'E1317' and 'M1317' followed by the rest of the alias description. In this way users of the data tables or lyr files that support field aliases can determine which ACS series is being represented by the current table contents. The next 5-year sample of ACS, representing the current year minus 1, becomes available in December of each year. For example, the next series - 2014 through 2018 - will become available at the end of 2019. The new 2017 data will be posted to the Spatial Data Warehouse by January 2019. The previous series of data is retired to the Historical Data Library geodatabase (according to the ACS series end date) from where it can be accessed if needed.

This layer shows Technology Access by Household. Data is from US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.This layer represents the underlying data for several data visualizations on the Tempe Equity Map.Data visualized as a percent of total households in given census tract.Layer includes:Key demographicsTotal Households % With a Desktop or Laptop Computer% With only a Desktop or Laptop% With a Smartphone% With only a Smartphone% With a Tablet% With only a tablet% With other type of computing device% With other type of computing device only% No computerCurrent Vintage: 2017-2021ACS Table(s): S2801 (Not all lines of this ACS table are available in this feature layer.)Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of Census update: Dec 8, 2022Data Preparation: Data table downloaded and joined with Census Tract boundaries that are within or adjacent to the City of Tempe boundaryNational Figures: data.census.gov

Geo-referenced datasets.

Can your desktop computer crunch the large GIS datasets that are becoming increasingly common across the geosciences? Do you have access to, or the know how to, take advantage of advanced high performance computing (HPC) capability? Web based cyberinfrastructure takes work off your desk or laptop computer and onto infrastructure or "cloud" based data and processing servers. This talk will describe the HydroShare collaborative environment and web based services being developed to support the sharing and processing of hydrologic data and models. HydroShare supports the storage and sharing of a broad class of hydrologic data including time series, geographic features and rasters, multidimensional space-time data and structured collections of data representing river geometry. Web service tools and a python client library provide researchers with access to high performance computing resources without requiring them to become HPC experts. This reduces the time and effort spent in finding and organizing the data required to prepare the inputs for hydrologic models and facilitates the management of online data and execution of models on HPC systems. This talk will illustrate web and client based use of data services that support the delineation of watersheds to define a modeling domain, then extract terrain and land use information to automatically configure the inputs required for hydrologic models. These services support the Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Model (TauDEM) tools for watershed delineation and generation of hydrology-based terrain information such as wetness index and stream networks. These services also support the derivation of inputs for the Utah Energy Balance snowmelt model used to address questions such as how climate, land cover and land use change may affect snowmelt inputs to runoff generation. These cases serve as examples for how this approach can be extended to other models to enhance the use of web and data services in the geosciences.

Presentation at Kansas University GIS Days November 18, 2015

Today, deep neural networks are widely used in many computer vision problems, also for geographic information systems (GIS) data. This type of data is commonly used for urban analyzes and spatial planning. We used orthophotographic images of two residential districts from Kielce, Poland for research including urban sprawl automatic analysis with Transformer-based neural network application.Orthophotomaps were obtained from Kielce GIS portal. Then, the map was manually masked into building and building surroundings classes. Finally, the ortophotomap and corresponding classification mask were simultaneously divided into small tiles. This approach is common in image data preprocessing for machine learning algorithms learning phase. Data contains two original orthophotomaps from Wietrznia and Pod Telegrafem residential districts with corresponding masks and also their tiled version, ready to provide as a training data for machine learning models.Transformed-based neural network has undergone a training process on the Wietrznia dataset, targeted for semantic segmentation of the tiles into buildings and surroundings classes. After that, inference of the models was used to test model's generalization ability on the Pod Telegrafem dataset. The efficiency of the model was satisfying, so it can be used in automatic semantic building segmentation. Then, the process of dividing the images can be reversed and complete classification mask retrieved. This mask can be used for area of the buildings calculations and urban sprawl monitoring, if the research would be repeated for GIS data from wider time horizon.Since the dataset was collected from Kielce GIS portal, as the part of the Polish Main Office of Geodesy and Cartography data resource, it may be used only for non-profit and non-commertial purposes, in private or scientific applications, under the law "Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (Dz.U. z 2006 r. nr 90 poz 631 z późn. zm.)". There are no other legal or ethical considerations in reuse potential.Data information is presented below.wietrznia_2019.jpg - orthophotomap of Wietrznia districtmodel's - used for training, as an explanatory imagewietrznia_2019.png - classification mask of Wietrznia district - used for model's training, as a target imagewietrznia_2019_validation.jpg - one image from Wietrznia district - used for model's validation during training phasepod_telegrafem_2019.jpg - orthophotomap of Pod Telegrafem district - used for model's evaluation after training phasewietrznia_2019 - folder with wietrznia_2019.jpg (image) and wietrznia_2019.png (annotation) images, divided into 810 tiles (512 x 512 pixels each), tiles with no information were manually removed, so the training data would contain only informative tilestiles presented - used for the model during training (images and annotations for fitting the model to the data)wietrznia_2019_vaidation - folder with wietrznia_2019_validation.jpg image divided into 16 tiles (256 x 256 pixels each) - tiles were presented to the model during training (images for validation model's efficiency); it was not the part of the training datapod_telegrafem_2019 - folder with pod_telegrafem.jpg image divided into 196 tiles (256 x 265 pixels each) - tiles were presented to the model during inference (images for evaluation model's robustness)Dataset was created as described below.Firstly, the orthophotomaps were collected from Kielce Geoportal (https://gis.kielce.eu). Kielce Geoportal offers a .pst recent map from April 2019. It is an orthophotomap with a resolution of 5 x 5 pixels, constructed from a plane flight at 700 meters over ground height, taken with a camera for vertical photos. Downloading was done by WMS in open-source QGIS software (https://www.qgis.org), as a 1:500 scale map, then converted to a 1200 dpi PNG image.Secondly, the map from Wietrznia residential district was manually labelled, also in QGIS, in the same scope, as the orthophotomap. Annotation based on land cover map information was also obtained from Kielce Geoportal. There are two classes - residential building and surrounding. Second map, from Pod Telegrafem district was not annotated, since it was used in the testing phase and imitates situation, where there is no annotation for the new data presented to the model.Next, the images was converted to an RGB JPG images, and the annotation map was converted to 8-bit GRAY PNG image.Finally, Wietrznia data files were tiled to 512 x 512 pixels tiles, in Python PIL library. Tiles with no information or a relatively small amount of information (only white background or mostly white background) were manually removed. So, from the 29113 x 15938 pixels orthophotomap, only 810 tiles with corresponding annotations were left, ready to train the machine learning model for the semantic segmentation task. Pod Telegrafem orthophotomap was tiled with no manual removing, so from the 7168 x 7168 pixels ortophotomap were created 197 tiles with 256 x 256 pixels resolution. There was also image of one residential building, used for model's validation during training phase, it was not the part of the training data, but was a part of Wietrznia residential area. It was 2048 x 2048 pixel ortophotomap, tiled to 16 tiles 256 x 265 pixels each.

This layer shows Computers and Internet Use. This is shown by state and county boundaries. This service contains the 2017-2021 release of data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. This layer is symbolized to show Percentage of Households with a Broadband Internet Subscription. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2018-2022ACS Table(s): DP02, S2801Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: January 18, 2022National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:Boundaries come from the Cartographic Boundaries via US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates, and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico. The Counties (and equivalent) layer contains 3221 records - all counties and equivalent, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico municipios. See Areas Published. Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells.Margin of error (MOE) values of -555555555 in the API (or "*****" (five asterisks) on data.census.gov) are displayed as 0 in this dataset. The estimates associated with these MOEs have been controlled to independent counts in the ACS weighting and have zero sampling error. So, the MOEs are effectively zeroes, and are treated as zeroes in MOE calculations. Other negative values on the API, such as -222222222, -666666666, -888888888, and -999999999, all represent estimates or MOEs that can't be calculated or can't be published, usually due to small sample sizes. All of these are rendered in this dataset as null (blank) values.

Shapefile used in the various maps in the study. Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A2fdaa83821076dc77d906d53f13fd8aaa6ecb2f8bf1e16082352037b5459f465 for complete metadata about this dataset.

You will need an ArcGIS login which will allow you to sign in to both ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Pro.If you are a student, your university likely has logins that they can issue you. Once you have an ArcGIS login follow the adjacent video. ArcGIS will likely already be installed on certain campus computers where you can login immediately. For additional ArcGIS Pro installation guidance, follow the links below.

This dataset consists of: a colour digital orthophoto of Taylor Rookery; and vector data resulting from 1:5000 scale topographic mapping of Taylor Rookery. The vector data are formatted according to the SCAR Feature Catalogue (see link below).

Flow accumulation grid generated from 10 meter DEM, Andrews Experimental Forest. This grid is useful for determining the area of land that drains to a point. The user selects a point on the grid, and the value of that point represents the area (in 100 square meters) that drain to the point. This grid can also be used for generating watershed boundaries and stream networks.

This layer shows computer ownership and internet access by age and race. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. This layer is symbolized to show the percent of population age 18 to 64 in households with no computer. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B28005, B28003, B28009B, B28009C, B28009D, B28009E, B28009F, B28009G, B28009H, B28009I Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. For more information about ACS layers, visit the FAQ. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases, specifically, the National Sub-State Geography Database (named tlgdb_(year)_a_us_substategeo.gdb). Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract level boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2023 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters).The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -4444...) have been set to null, with the exception of -5555... which has been set to zero. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.

The geospatial data fusion market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand for location-based intelligence across diverse sectors. The convergence of various data sources, including satellite imagery, sensor data, and geographic information systems (GIS), is fueling the adoption of advanced geospatial analytics. This market is segmented by delivery model (SaaS, PaaS) and application (earth observation, computer vision, military & security, and others). The SaaS model currently holds a significant market share due to its scalability and accessibility, while the demand for earth observation and computer vision applications is rapidly expanding, propelled by advancements in AI and machine learning. Government initiatives focused on national security and infrastructure development are further boosting market growth. North America and Europe currently dominate the market, but the Asia-Pacific region is projected to witness the fastest growth in the coming years due to rising investments in infrastructure and technological advancements. Competitive dynamics are characterized by a mix of established GIS vendors and specialized geospatial data fusion companies. Future growth will be influenced by factors such as increased data volumes, technological advancements in data processing and analytics, and ongoing investments in research and development. While precise figures are not provided, assuming a moderate CAGR (let's estimate at 15% for illustrative purposes), and a 2025 market size of $5 billion (a reasonable estimate considering the mentioned companies and applications), the market is poised for significant expansion. The restraints on market growth are likely associated with high initial investment costs for implementation, the need for skilled professionals to interpret the fused data, and concerns regarding data security and privacy. However, these challenges are gradually being addressed through the development of user-friendly software and robust data security protocols. The market's trajectory suggests a continuous upward trend, with growth significantly influenced by the adoption of innovative geospatial technologies and increased government and private sector investment.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

This project file contains row research data and result data that have been used for the paper entitled "GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for Arabica coffee expansion in Rwanda" by Innocent Nzeyimana, Alfred E. Hartemink, Violette Geissen. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1128594- See more at: http://figshare.com/preview/_preview/1128594#sthash.QkGK7m8Y.dpuf

This file contains the generated line of sight data regarding visibility from the modeled corridor to mountaintop tomb points in Western Tibet.

The Computer Vision in Geospatial Imagery market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand for accurate and efficient geospatial data analysis across various sectors. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning, and high-resolution imaging technologies are fueling this expansion. The market's ability to extract valuable insights from aerial and satellite imagery is transforming industries such as agriculture, urban planning, environmental monitoring, and defense. Applications range from precision agriculture using drone imagery for crop health monitoring to autonomous vehicle navigation and infrastructure inspection using high-resolution satellite data. The integration of computer vision with cloud computing platforms facilitates large-scale data processing and analysis, further accelerating market growth. We estimate the 2025 market size to be approximately $2.5 billion, exhibiting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15% from 2025 to 2033. This growth is expected to continue, driven by increasing adoption of advanced analytics and the need for real-time geospatial intelligence. Several factors contribute to this positive outlook. The decreasing cost of high-resolution sensors and cloud computing resources is making computer vision solutions more accessible. Furthermore, the growing availability of large datasets for training sophisticated AI models is enhancing the accuracy and performance of computer vision algorithms in analyzing geospatial data. However, challenges remain, including data privacy concerns, the need for robust data security measures, and the complexity of integrating diverse data sources. Nevertheless, the overall market trend remains strongly upward, with significant opportunities for technology providers and users alike. The key players listed—Alteryx, Google, Keyence, and others—are actively shaping this landscape through innovative product development and strategic partnerships.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

This is a connection to the Chester County GIS Open Data portal. Chester County incorporates the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in several departments and agencies that use geographic data in their key business functions. Geographic Information Systems integrate spatial data (maps) and tabular data (databases) through computer technology.

Contact Chester County GIS Phone: 610-344-6096 Email: gis@chesco.org