Annual Resident Population Estimates by Age Group, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 // Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division // The contents of this file are released on a rolling basis from December through June. // Note: 'In combination' means in combination with one or more other races. The sum of the five race-in-combination groups adds to more than the total population because individuals may report more than one race. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. Responses of 'Some Other Race' from the 2010 Census are modified. This results in differences between the population for specific race categories shown for the 2010 Census population in this file versus those in the original 2010 Census data. For more information, see https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/modified-race-summary-file-method/mrsf2010.pdf. // The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. // For detailed information about the methods used to create the population estimates, see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology.html. // Each year, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program (PEP) utilizes current data on births, deaths, and migration to calculate population change since the most recent decennial census, and produces a time series of estimates of population. The annual time series of estimates begins with the most recent decennial census data and extends to the vintage year. The vintage year (e.g., V2017) refers to the final year of the time series. The reference date for all estimates is July 1, unless otherwise specified. With each new issue of estimates, the Census Bureau revises estimates for years back to the last census. As each vintage of estimates includes all years since the most recent decennial census, the latest vintage of data available supersedes all previously produced estimates for those dates. The Population Estimates Program provides additional information including historical and intercensal estimates, evaluation estimates, demographic analysis, and research papers on its website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html.

These data were developed by the Research & Analytics Department at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau across all standard and custom geographies at statewide summary level where applicable.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the ACS 2019-2023. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics. Find naming convention prefixes/suffixes, geography definitions and user notes below.Prefixes:NoneCountpPercentrRatemMedianaMean (average)tAggregate (total)chChange in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pchPercent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chpChange in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)sSignificance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computedSuffixes:_e23Estimate from 2019-23 ACS_m23Margin of Error from 2019-23 ACS_e102006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_m10Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_e10_23Change, 2010-23 (holding constant at 2020 geography)GeographiesAAA = Area Agency on Aging (12 geographic units formed from counties providing statewide coverage)ARC21 = Atlanta Regional Commission modeling area (21 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ARWDB7 = Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board (7 counties merged to a single geographic unit)BeltLineStatistical (buffer)BeltLineStatisticalSub (subareas)Census Tract (statewide)CFGA23 = Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta (23 counties merged to a single geographic unit)City (statewide)City of Atlanta Council Districts (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas (City of Atlanta)County (statewide)CCDIST = County Commission Districts (statewide where applicable)CCSUPERDIST = County Commission Superdistricts (DeKalb)Georgia House (statewide)Georgia Senate (statewide)HSSA = High School Statistical Area (11 county region)MetroWater15 = Atlanta Metropolitan Water District (15 counties merged to a single geographic unit)Regional Commissions (statewide)State of Georgia (single geographic unit)Superdistrict (ARC region)US Congress (statewide)UWGA13 = United Way of Greater Atlanta (13 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (statewide)The 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 2019-2023). 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: 2019-2023Open Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the data manifest: https://opendata.atlantaregional.com/documents/182e6fcf8201449086b95adf39471831/about

Abstract

The Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) was a nationally representative sample survey conducted from March through June 1988 to collect data on fertility, family planning, and child and maternal health. A total of 9,045 households and 6,775 ever-married women aged 15 to 49 were interviewed. Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) is carried out by the Institute of Population Studies (IPS) of Chulalongkorn University with the financial support from USAID through the Institute for Resource Development (IRD) at Westinghouse. The Institute of Population Studies was responsible for the overall implementation of the survey including sample design, preparation of field work, data collection and processing, and analysis of data. IPS has made available its personnel and office facilities to the project throughout the project duration. It serves as the headquarters for the survey.

The Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) was undertaken for the main purpose of providing data concerning fertility, family planning and maternal and child health to program managers and policy makers to facilitate their evaluation and planning of programs, and to population and health researchers to assist in their efforts to document and analyze the demographic and health situation. It is intended to provide information both on topics for which comparable data is not available from previous nationally representative surveys as well as to update trends with respect to a number of indicators available from previous surveys, in particular the Longitudinal Study of Social Economic and Demographic Change in 1969-73, the Survey of Fertility in Thailand in 1975, the National Survey of Family Planning Practices, Fertility and Mortality in 1979, and the three Contraceptive Prevalence Surveys in 1978/79, 1981 and 1984.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

The population covered by the 1987 THADHS is defined as the universe of all women Ever-married women in the reproductive ages (i.e., women 15-49). This covered women in private households on the basis of a de facto coverage definition. Visitors and usual residents who were in the household the night before the first visit or before any subsequent visit during the few days the interviewing team was in the area were eligible. Excluded were the small number of married women aged under 15 and women not present in private households.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE SIZE AND ALLOCATION

The objective of the survey was to provide reliable estimates for major domains of the country. This consisted of two overlapping sets of reporting domains: (a) Five regions of the country namely Bangkok, north, northeast, central region (excluding Bangkok), and south; (b) Bangkok versus all provincial urban and all rural areas of the country. These requirements could be met by defining six non-overlapping sampling domains (Bangkok, provincial urban, and rural areas of each of the remaining 4 regions), and allocating approximately equal sample sizes to them. On the basis of past experience, available budget and overall reporting requirement, the target sample size was fixed at 7,000 interviews of ever-married women aged 15-49, expected to be found in around 9,000 households. Table A.I shows the actual number of households as well as eligible women selected and interviewed, by sampling domain (see Table i.I for reporting domains).

THE FRAME AND SAMPLE SELECTION

The frame for selecting the sample for urban areas, was provided by the National Statistical Office of Thailand and by the Ministry of the Interior for rural areas. It consisted of information on population size of various levels of administrative and census units, down to blocks in urban areas and villages in rural areas. The frame also included adequate maps and descriptions to identify these units. The extent to which the data were up-to-date as well as the quality of the data varied somewhat in different parts of the frame. Basically, the multi-stage stratified sampling design involved the following procedure. A specified number of sample areas were selected systematically from geographically/administratively ordered lists with probabilities proportional to the best available measure of size (PPS). Within selected areas (blocks or villages) new lists of households were prepared and systematic samples of households were selected. In principle, the sampling interval for the selection of households from lists was determined so as to yield a self weighting sample of households within each domain. However, in the absence of good measures of population size for all areas, these sampling intervals often required adjustments in the interest of controlling the size of the resulting sample. Variations in selection probabilities introduced due to such adjustment, where required, were compensated for by appropriate weighting of sample cases at the tabulation stage.

SAMPLE OUTCOME

The final sample of households was selected from lists prepared in the sample areas. The time interval between household listing and enumeration was generally very short, except to some extent in Bangkok where the listing itself took more time. In principle, the units of listing were the same as the ultimate units of sampling, namely households. However in a small proportion of cases, the former differed from the latter in several respects, identified at the stage of final enumeration: a) Some units listed actually contained more than one household each b) Some units were "blanks", that is, were demolished or not found to contain any eligible households at the time of enumeration. c) Some units were doubtful cases in as much as the household was reported as "not found" by the interviewer, but may in fact have existed.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The DHS core questionnaires (Household, Eligible Women Respondent, and Community) were translated into Thai. A number of modifications were made largely to adapt them for use with an ever- married woman sample and to add a number of questions in areas that are of special interest to the Thai investigators but which were not covered in the standard core. Examples of such modifications included adding marital status and educational attainment to the household schedule, elaboration on questions in the individual questionnaire on educational attainment to take account of changes in the educational system during recent years, elaboration on questions on postnuptial residence, and adaptation of the questionnaire to take into account that only ever-married women are being interviewed rather than all women. More generally, attention was given to the wording of questions in Thai to ensure that the intent of the original English-language version was preserved.

a) Household questionnaire

The household questionnaire was used to list every member of the household who usually lives in the household and as well as visitors who slept in the household the night before the interviewer's visit. Information contained in the household questionnaire are age, sex, marital status, and education for each member (the last two items were asked only to members aged 13 and over). The head of the household or the spouse of the head of the household was the preferred respondent for the household questionnaire. However, if neither was available for interview, any adult member of the household was accepted as the respondent. Information from the household questionnaire was used to identify eligible women for the individual interview. To be eligible, a respondent had to be an ever-married woman aged 15-49 years old who had slept in the household 'the previous night'.

Prior evidence has indicated that when asked about current age, Thais are as likely to report age at next birthday as age at last birthday (the usual demographic definition of age). Since the birth date of each household number was not asked in the household questionnaire, it was not possible to calculate age at last birthday from the birthdate. Therefore a special procedure was followed to ensure that eligible women just under the higher boundary for eligible ages (i.e. 49 years old) were not mistakenly excluded from the eligible woman sample because of an overstated age. Ever-married women whose reported age was between 50-52 years old and who slept in the household the night before birthdate of the woman, it was discovered that these women (or any others being interviewed) were not actually within the eligible age range of 15-49, the interview was terminated and the case disqualified. This attempt recovered 69 eligible women who otherwise would have been missed because their reported age was over 50 years old or over.

b) Individual questionnaire

The questionnaire administered to eligible women was based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire for high contraceptive prevalence countries. The individual questionnaire has 8 sections: - Respondent's background - Reproduction - Contraception - Health and breastfeeding - Marriage - Fertility preference - Husband's background and woman's work - Heights and weights of children and mothers

The questionnaire was modified to suit the Thai context. As noted above, several questions were added to the standard DHS core questionnaire not only to meet the interest of IPS researchers hut also because of their relevance to the current demographic situation in Thailand. The supplemental questions are marked with an asterisk in the individual questionnaire. Questions concerning the following items were added in the individual questionnaire: - Did the respondent ever

These data identify the mean annual population growth rate and ratio change in abundance of common raven (Corvus corax; ravens) populations from 1966 through 2018.

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.

These data identify the mean annual population growth rate and ratio change in abundance of common raven (Corvus corax; ravens) populations from 1966 through 2018.

Long time series of Vienna’s population history from 1700 to 1999.

With this study the author A. Weigl submits the first detailed report on the population history of Vienna over the period from the late mediaevial time until the 20th century.

The author documents by means of the development of migration, reproduction and mortality the process of Vienna’s population history. Important influencing factors as for excample food pattern, plagues and epidemics, medical advance, the change of mentalities and influences by demographic policies are discussed in detail. The significant role of modenization-processes is in the focus of the publication.

By means of numerous long time series data the pecesses are documented empirically.

Content of the Study: - Demographic Change and Modernization - Main Features of Vienna’s Population Development - Migration: The Impetus for an Increasing Town - Mortality: From Town Refurbishment to Municipal Welfare Policy - Fertility: The Genesis of the Modern Family - The Common Modernizationcontext of Transition

List of Data-Tables in the GESIS-ZA-Online-Database HISTAT:

A. Population Development of Vienna

A.01 Population (1200-1999) A.02 Population Development by Territory as of Today (1590-1999) A.03 Regional Population Development (1700-1991) A.04 Population Movement (1869-1991) A.05 Agestructure (1856-1991) A.06 Population Development of the City, the suburbs and the periphery (1777-1857) A.07 Population by Urban Districts by Territory as of Today (1777-1991) A.08 Population by Urban Districts (1869-1939) A.09 Native Birth of the Population (1856-1934) A.10 Natural Population Movement (1707-1999) A.11 Proportion of Persons Younger than 14 Years by Urban Districts (1869-1939) A.12 Proportion of Persons in the Age of 60 and older by Urban Districts (1869-1939) A.13 Population and Birth Rates by Religious Denomination (1856-1939)

B. Migration

B.01 Ratios of Mobility-Transition (1710-1991) B.02 Acceptation of new Members into the Homeland Association (Naturalizations) (1919-1938)

C. Mortality

C.01 Age specific Mortality-Rates of Vienna (1856-1939) C.02 Age standardized Morality-Rates by Sex and by Causes of Death (1910-1935) C.03 Cholera-Mortality by Urnab Districts (1831-1873) C.04 Variola-Mortality (1728-1938) C.05 Average Life Expectancy (1830-1998) C.06a Age-Specific Mortality: Mortality Rates (1650-1999) C.06b Age-Specific Mortality: Agestructure of the Deceased (1650-1999) C.07a Infant Mortality (1728-1999) C.07b Infant Mortality Rate by Territory as of Today (1871-1938) C.08 Mortality Rates by Urban Districts (1871-1938) C.09 Infant Mortality by Urban Districts (1885-1911) C.10 Pulmonary Tuberculosis-Mortality by Urban Districts (1871-1938)

D. Fertiliy

D.01 General Fertility-Rate of Vienna (1856-1939) D.02 Fertility-Rate (1754-1999) D.03 Fertility-Indizes by Metropolitan Comparison (1910-1960) D.04 Illegitimacy-Rates (1797-1999) D.05 Marriage Rate, Birthrate and Deathrate (1706-1938) D.06 Marriage-, Mortality- and Infant Mortality Rate by Territory as of Today (1871-1938) D.07 Birth Rate by Urban Districts (1783-1938)

E. Housholds

E.01 Average Householdsize (1780-1991)

In 2024, the share of the population in Taiwan aged 65 and older accounted for approximately 19.2 percent of the total population. While the share of old people on the island increased gradually over recent years, the percentage of the working-age population and the children have both declined. Taiwan’s aging population With one of the lowest fertility rates in the world and a steadily growing life expectancy, the average age of Taiwan’s population is increasing quickly, and the share of people aged 65 and above is expected to reach around 38.4 percent of the total population in 2050. This development is also reflected in Taiwan’s population pyramid, which shows that the size of the youngest age group is only half of the size of age groups between 40 and 60 years. The rapid aging of the populations puts a heavy burden on the social insurance system. Old-age dependency is expected to reach more than 70 percent by 2050, meaning that by then three people of working age will have to support two elders, compared to only one elder supported by four working people today. Aging societies in East Asia Today, many countries in East Asia have very low fertility rates and face the challenges of aging societies. This is especially true among those countries that experienced high economic growth in the past, which often resulted in quickly receding birth rates. Japan was one of the first East Asian countries witnessing this demographic change, as is reflected in its high median age. South Korea had the lowest fertility rate of all Asian countries in recent years, and with China, one of the largest populations on earth joined the ranks of quickly aging societies.

This dataset includes data on 25 transitions of a matrix demographic model of the invasive species Vincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench (black swallow-wort or black dog-strangling vine) and Vincetoxicum rossicum (Kleopow) Barb. (pale swallow-wort or dog-strangling vine) (Apocynaceae, subfamily Asclepiadoideae), two invasive perennial vines in the northeastern U.S.A. and southeastern Canada. The matrix model was developed for projecting population growth rates as a result of changes to lower-level vital rates from biological control although the model is generalizable to any control tactic. Transitions occurred among the five life stages of seeds, seedlings, vegetative juveniles (defined as being in at least their second season of growth), small flowering plants (having 1–2 stems), and large flowering plants (having 3 or more stems). Transition values were calculated using deterministic equations and data from 20 lower-level vital rates collected from 2009-2012 from two open field and two forest understory populations of V. rossicum (43°51’N, 76°17’W; 42°48'N, 76°40'W) and two open field populations of V. nigrum (41°46’N, 73°44’W; 41°18’N, 73°58’W) in New York State. Sites varied in plant densities, soil depth, and light levels (forest populations). Detailed descriptions of vital rate data collection may be found in: Milbrath et al. 2017. Northeastern Naturalist 24(1):37-53. Five replicate sets of transition data obtained from five separate spatial regions of a particular infestation were produced for each of the six populations. Note: Added new excel file of vital rate data on 12/7/2018. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Matrix model transition data for Vincetoxicum species. File Name: Matrix_model_transition_data.csvResource Description: This data set includes data on 25 transitions of a matrix demographic model of two invasive Vincetoxicum species from six field and forest populations in New York State.Resource Title: Variable definitions. File Name: Matrix_model_metadata.csvResource Description: Definitions of variables including equations for each transition and definitions of the lower-level vital rates in the equationsResource Title: Vital Rate definitions. File Name: Vital_Rate.csvResource Description: Vital Rate definitions of lower-level vital rates used in transition equations - to be substituted into the Data Dictionary for full definition of each transition equation.Resource Title: Data Dictionary. File Name: Matrix_Model_transition_data_DD.csvResource Description: See Vital Rate resource for definitions of lower-level vital rates used in transition equations where noted.Resource Title: Matrix model vital rate data for Vincetoxicum species. File Name: Matrix_model_vital rate_data.csvResource Description: This data set includes data on 20 lower-level vital rates used in the calculation of transitions of a matrix demographic model of two invasive Vincetoxicum species in New York State as well as definitions of the vital rates. (File added on 12/7/2018)Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://office.microsoft.com/excel/

In 2023, the median age of the population of the United States was 39.2 years. While this may seem quite young, the median age in 1960 was even younger, at 29.5 years. The aging population in the United States means that society is going to have to find a way to adapt to the larger numbers of older people. Everything from Social Security to employment to the age of retirement will have to change if the population is expected to age more while having fewer children. The world is getting older It’s not only the United States that is facing this particular demographic dilemma. In 1950, the global median age was 23.6 years. This number is projected to increase to 41.9 years by the year 2100. This means that not only the U.S., but the rest of the world will also have to find ways to adapt to the aging population.

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section...Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..An * indicates that the estimate is significantly different (at a 90% confidence level) than the estimate from the most current year. A "c" indicates the estimates for that year and the current year are both controlled; a statistical test is not appropriate..Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau''s Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..Explanation of Symbols:An ''**'' entry in 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..An ''-'' entry in the estimate column indicates that 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..An ''-'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''+'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''***'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''*****'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An ''N'' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An ''(X)'' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available..Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..While the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..The definitions of the metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas for the 2013 American Community Survey are based on the commuting patterns identified in the 2010 Census. Estimates prior to 2013 are based on the results of the 2000 Census. Statistically significant change from prior years' estimates could be the result of changes in the metropolitan geographic definitions and not necessarily the demographic, social or economic characteristic. For more information, see: Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas..For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data, please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, issued March 2011. (pdf format).The ACS questions on Hispanic origin and race were revised in 2008 to make them consistent with the Census 2010 question wording. Any changes in estimates for 2008 and beyond may be due to demographic changes, as well as factors including questionnaire changes, differences in ACS population controls, and methodological differences in the population estimates, and therefore should be used with caution. For a summary of questionnaire changes see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/questionnaire_changes/. For more information about changes in the estimates see http://www.census.gov/population/hispanic/files/acs08researchnote.pdf..The 2009 ACS one year estimates use controls that are based on Census 2000, while the 2010-2013 ACS one year estimates use controls that are based on 2010 Census, which create differences in the population estimates. Therefore, estimates for 2009 are suppressed in this comparison table and shown with an (X). For more details, visit the ACS Research Note Change in Population Controls [PDF 366K]..In data year 2013, there were a series of changes to data collection operations that could have affected some estimates. These changes include the addition of Internet as a mode of data collection...

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 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

Annual Resident Population Estimates by Age Group, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin; for the United States, States, Counties; and for Puerto Rico and its Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 // Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division // The contents of this file are released on a rolling basis from December through June. // Note: 'In combination' means in combination with one or more other races. The sum of the five race-in-combination groups adds to more than the total population because individuals may report more than one race. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. Responses of 'Some Other Race' from the 2010 Census are modified. This results in differences between the population for specific race categories shown for the 2010 Census population in this file versus those in the original 2010 Census data. The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. // Current data on births, deaths, and migration are used to calculate population change since the 2010 Census. An annual time series of estimates is produced, beginning with the census and extending to the vintage year. The vintage year (e.g., Vintage 2019) refers to the final year of the time series. The reference date for all estimates is July 1, unless otherwise specified. With each new issue of estimates, the entire estimates series is revised. Additional information, including historical and intercensal estimates, evaluation estimates, demographic analysis, research papers, and methodology is available on website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html.

In 2023, the average age at childbirth among women in France was 31.1 years old. It appears that the mean age of French mothers at childbirth has been increasing since the 1990’s. In 2015, more than 52 percent of French newborns had a mother aged between 30 and 39 years.

Women are having children at an older age

Studies have shown that in France, women tend to have children at an older age than before. In 1990, the proportion of newborns whose mothers were 40 or older amounted to 2.15 percent in France. Years later, in 2014, and after a gradual progression over the years, this share reached 5.13 percent. French mothers do not only have their children at an older age, they mostly have their first born later. In 2014, more than 26 percent of newborns born from a mother aged 40 and older were their first child.

The most fertile country in Europe

Even though the mean age of mothers at first birth is increasing in most Western countries, it seems that women in France still have children at a younger age than most of their European counterparts. But French women are not only younger when they give birth, they also have more children. In 2018, France was the most fertile country in Europe with nearly 2 births per women. A number that has remained relatively stable for several years.

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section...Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau''s Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..Explanation of Symbols:An ''**'' entry in 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..An ''-'' entry in the estimate column indicates that 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..An ''-'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''+'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''***'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''*****'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An ''N'' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An ''(X)'' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available..Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..While the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the December 2009 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data, please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, issued March 2011. (pdf format).The ACS questions on Hispanic origin and race were revised in 2008 to make them consistent with the Census 2010 question wording. Any changes in estimates for 2008 and beyond may be due to demographic changes, as well as factors including questionnaire changes, differences in ACS population controls, and methodological differences in the population estimates, and therefore should be used with caution. For a summary of questionnaire changes see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/questionnaire_changes/. For more information about changes in the estimates see http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/reports.html..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 roughly 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..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey

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

The total fertility rate of the world has dropped from around five children per woman in 1950, to 2.2 children per woman in 2025, which means that women today are having fewer than half the number of children that women did 75 years ago. Replacement level fertility This change has come as a result of the global demographic transition, and is influenced by factors such as the significant reduction in infant and child mortality, reduced number of child marriages, increased educational and vocational opportunities for women, and the increased efficacy and availability of contraception. While this change has become synonymous with societal progress, it does have wide-reaching demographic impact - if the global average falls below replacement level (roughly 2.1 children per woman), as is expected to happen in the 2050s, then this will lead to long-term population decline on a global scale. Regional variations When broken down by continent, Africa is the only region with a fertility rate above the global average, and, alongside Oceania, it is the only region with a fertility rate above replacement level. Until the 1980s, the average woman in Africa could expect to have 6-7 children over the course of their lifetime, and there are still several countries in Africa where women can still expect to have five or more children in 2025. Historically, Europe has had the lowest fertility rates in the world over the past century, falling below replacement level in 1975. Europe's population has grown through a combination of migration and increasing life expectancy, however even high immigration rates could not prevent its population from going into decline in 2021.

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section...Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, for 2010, the 2010 Census provides the official counts of the population and housing units for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns. For 2006 to 2009, the Population Estimates Program provides intercensal estimates of the population for the nation, states, and counties..Explanation of Symbols:.An ''**'' entry in 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..An ''-'' entry in the estimate column indicates that 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..An ''-'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''+'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''***'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''*****'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An ''N'' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An ''(X)'' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available..Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..While the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the December 2009 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..The ACS questions on Hispanic origin and race were revised in 2008 to make them consistent with the Census 2010 question wording. Any changes in estimates for 2008 and beyond may be due to demographic changes, as well as factors including questionnaire changes, differences in ACS population controls, and methodological differences in the population estimates, and therefore should be used with caution. For a summary of questionnaire changes see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/questionnaire_changes/. For more information about changes in the estimates see http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/reports.html..For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data, please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, issued March 2011. (pdf format).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 roughly 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..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey

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