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

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.

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.

The Life course, Generation and Gender study (LOGG) is an umbrella study for two surveys. One of the surveys is a larger survey that is a part of the UN's research program about generation and gender equality, Generations and Gender Probramme (GGP). The other survey is the Norwegian survey Lifespan, aging and generation (NorLAG). An important aim of the study on lifespan, generation and gender (LOGG) is to achieve better insight to the consequences of long term demographic changes.

Among the questions that the survey can contribute to answer are (Brunborg et. al., 2009): - Is it possible to avoid further decline in the fertility rate and stimulate young people towards starting families, producing larger broods of children and thereby achieving a more balanced population development in the long term? - How is it possible to counteract retirement rates and arrange for more durable including in the labor market? - What meaning does life- and health habits have for health and assistance needed for the elderly? - Which relationships contribute to movement and which relationships influence movement patterns?

Even though data gathering for LOGG to a large degree was carried through as a study it contains several possibilities. Information can be analyzed as a country wide representative sample in the age 18-79 years (LOGG/GGS). In addition, it is possible to filter data in connection to the original NorLag study in two ways. Either by studying the persons that are interviewed in LOGG, but at the same time are included in the second round of the NorLAG study, meaning a representative sample in the age 18-79 years in a sample of municipalities and districts in Norway. Or by studying the sample in NorLAG, meaning persons that were already drawn in 2002, and connect these to the LOGG survey - a representative sample in the age 40-85 years in a sample of municipalities and districts in Norway.

This is the supplementary file and it contains data from the postal questionnaires. There is also a supplementary file that contains data from the telephone interviews.

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

In Czechia, the highest natural population increase in the observed period was recorded in 2010 at 10.3 thousand. In 2023, the natural population change was less than -21.6 thousand, meaning that the number of live births was lower than the number of deaths. Natural population change is the difference between the number of live births and deaths during a given period.

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

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 2014-2018). 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 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.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

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% Confidence Interval, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e18

Estimate from 2014-18 ACS

_m18

Margin of Error from 2014-18 ACS

_00_v18

Decennial 2000 in 2018 geography boundary

_00_18

Change, 2000-18

_e10_v18

Estimate from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_m10_v18

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_e10_18

Change, 2010-18

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 layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

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 2014-2018). 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 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.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

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% Confidence Interval, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e18

Estimate from 2014-18 ACS

_m18

Margin of Error from 2014-18 ACS

_00_v18

Decennial 2000 in 2018 geography boundary

_00_18

Change, 2000-18

_e10_v18

Estimate from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_m10_v18

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_e10_18

Change, 2010-18

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Group of the Atlanta Regional Commission, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2013-2017, to show sex and age by race and by city in the Atlanta region.

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 2013-2017). 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.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

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)

Suffixes:

None

Change over two periods

_e

Estimate from most recent ACS

_m

Margin of Error from most recent ACS

_00

Decennial 2000

Attributes:

Attributes and definitions available below under "Attributes" section and in Infrastructure Manifest (due to text box constraints, attributes cannot be displayed here).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional Commission

Date: 2013-2017

For additional information, please visit the Census ACS website.

The total population of Germany was estimated at over 84.4 million inhabitants in 2025, although it is projected to drop in the coming years and fall below 80 million in 2043. Germany is the most populous country located entirely in Europe, and is third largest when Russia and Turkey are included. Germany's prosperous economy makes it a popular destination for immigrants of all backgrounds, which has kept its population above 80 million for several decades. Population growth and stability has depended on immigration In every year since 1972, Germany has had a higher death rate than its birth rate, meaning its population is in natural decline. However, Germany's population has rarely dropped below its 1972 figure of 78.6 million, and, in fact, peaked at 84.7 million in 2024, all due to its high net immigration rate. Over the past 75 years, the periods that saw the highest population growth rates were; the 1960s, due to the second wave of the post-WWII baby boom; the 1990s, due to post-reunification immigration; and since the 2010s, due to high arrivals of refugees from conflict zones in Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine. Does falling population = economic decline? Current projections predict that Germany's population will fall to almost 70 million by the next century. Germany's fertility rate currently sits around 1.5 births per woman, which is well below the repacement rate of 2.1 births per woman. Population aging and decline present a major challenge economies, as more resources must be invested in elderly care, while the workforce shrinks and there are fewer taxpayers contributing to social security. Countries such as Germany have introduced more generous child benefits and family friendly policies, although these are yet to prove effective in creating a cultural shift. Instead, labor shortages are being combatted via automation and immigration, however, both these solutions are met with resistance among large sections of the population and have become defining political issues of our time.

These data were developed by the Research & Analytics Group 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 2018-2022 Data Manifest. 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:_e22Estimate from 2018-22 ACS_m22Margin of Error from 2018-22 ACS_e102006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_m10Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_e10_22Change, 2010-22 (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)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 2018-2022). 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: 2018-2022Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the data manifest: https://opendata.atlantaregional.com/documents/3b86ee614e614199ba66a3ff1ebfe3b5/about

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

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 2014-2018). 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 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.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

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% Confidence Interval, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e18

Estimate from 2014-18 ACS

_m18

Margin of Error from 2014-18 ACS

_00_v18

Decennial 2000 in 2018 geography boundary

_00_18

Change, 2000-18

_e10_v18

Estimate from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_m10_v18

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_e10_18

Change, 2010-18

Whereas the population is expected to decrease somewhat until 2100 in Asia, Europe, and South America, it is predicted to grow significantly in Africa. While there were 1.5 billion inhabitants on the continent at the beginning of 2024, the number of inhabitants is expected to reach 3.8 billion by 2100. In total, the global population is expected to reach nearly 10.4 billion by 2100. Worldwide population In the United States, the total population is expected to steadily increase over the next couple of years. In 2024, Asia held over half of the global population and is expected to have the highest number of people living in urban areas in 2050. Asia is home to the two most populous countries, India and China, both with a population of over one billion people. However, the small country of Monaco had the highest population density worldwide in 2021. Effects of overpopulation Alongside the growing worldwide population, there are negative effects of overpopulation. The increasing population puts a higher pressure on existing resources and contributes to pollution. As the population grows, the demand for food grows, which requires more water, which in turn takes away from the freshwater available. Concurrently, food needs to be transported through different mechanisms, which contributes to air pollution. Not every resource is renewable, meaning the world is using up limited resources that will eventually run out. Furthermore, more species will become extinct which harms the ecosystem and food chain. Overpopulation was considered to be one of the most important environmental issues worldwide in 2020.

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

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 2014-2018). 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 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.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

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% Confidence Interval, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e18

Estimate from 2014-18 ACS

_m18

Margin of Error from 2014-18 ACS

_00_v18

Decennial 2000 in 2018 geography boundary

_00_18

Change, 2000-18

_e10_v18

Estimate from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_m10_v18

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_e10_18

Change, 2010-18

Abstract

The 1999-2000 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) is a nationally representative sample survey designed to provide information on basic national indicators of social progress including fertility, contraceptive knowledge and use, fertility preference, childhood mortality, maternal and child health, nutritional status of mothers and children and awareness of AIDS.

The 1999-2000 BDHS provides a comprehensive look at levels and trends in key health and demographic parameters for policy makers and program managers. The fertility has declined from 6.3 children per women in 1975 to 3.3 in 1999-2000. The pace of fertility decline has slowed in the most recent period compared to the rapid decline during late 1980s and early 1990s. The BDHS 1999-2000 findings also show the increasing trend of contraceptive use, declining childhood mortality, and improving nutritional status.

The Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) is intended to serve as a source of population and health data for policymakers and the research community. In general, the objectives of the BDHS survey are to: - Assess the overall demographic situation in Bangladesh - Assist in the evaluation of the population and health programs in Bangladesh - Advance survey methodology.

More specifically, the objective of the BDHS survey is to provide up-to-date information on fertility and childhood mortality levels; nuptiality; fertility preferences; awareness, approval, and use of family planning methods; breastfeeding practices; nutrition levels; and maternal and child health. This information is intended to assist policymakers and administrators in evaluating and designing programs and strategies for improving health and family planning services in the country.

The 1999-2000 BDHS survey was conducted under the authority of the National Institute for Population Research and Training (NIPORT) of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The survey was implemented by Mitra and Associates, a Bangladeshi research firm located in Dhaka. Macro International Inc. of Calverton, Maryland, provided technical assistance to the project as part of its international Demographic and Health Surveys program, and financial assistance was provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)/Bangladesh.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 10-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

Bangladesh is divided into 6 administrative divisions, 64 districts (zillas), and 490 thanas. In rural areas, thanas are divided into unions and then mauzas, a land administrative unit. Urban areas are divided into wards and then mahallas. The 1999-2000 BDHS survey employed a nationally representative, two-stage sample that was selected from the master sample maintained by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics for the implementation of surveys before the next census (2001). The master sample consists of 500 primary sampling units (PSUs) with enough PSUs in each stratum except for the urban strata of the Barisal and Sylhet divisions. In the rural areas, the primary sampling unit was the mauza, while in urban areas, it was the mahalla. Because the primary sampling units in the master sample were selected with probability proportional to size from the 1991 census frame, the units for the BDHS survey were subselected from the master sample with equal probability to make the BDHS selection equivalent to selection with probability proportional to size. A total of 341 primary sampling units were used for the BDHS survey (99 in urban areas and 242 in rural areas).

Since one objective of the BDHS survey is to provide separate survey estimates for each division as well as for urban and rural areas separately, it was necessary to increase the sampling rate for the Barisal and Sylhet divisions and for urban areas relative to the other divisions. Thus, the BDHS sample is not self-weighting and weighting factors have been applied to the data in this report.

Mitra and Associates conducted a household listing operation in all the sample points from September to December 1999. A systematic sample of 10,268 households was then selected from these lists. Every third household was selected for the men's survey, meaning that in addition to interviewing all ever-married women age 10-49, interviewers also interviewed all currently married men age 15-59 in those selected households. It was expected that the sample would yield interviews with approximately 10,000 ever-married women age 10-49 and 3,000 currently married men age 15-59.

Note: See detailed in APPENDIX A of the survey report

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Four types of questionnaires were used for the BDHS survey: a Household Questionnaire, a Women’s Questionnaire, a Men’s Questionnaire, and a set of questionnaires for the Service Provision Assessment (SPA) (community, health facilities, fieldworkers). The contents of these questionnaires were based on the MEASURE DHS+ Model A Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with relatively high levels of contraceptive use. These model questionnaires were adapted for use in Bangladesh during a series of meetings with a small Technical Task Force (TTF) that consisted of representatives from NIPORT; Mitra and Associates; USAID/Dhaka; the International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B); Dhaka University; and Macro International Inc. (see Appendix A for a list of members). Draft questionnaires were then circulated to other interested groups and were reviewed by the BDHS Technical Review Committee. The questionnaires were developed in English and then translated in to and printed in Bangla.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in the selected households. Some basic information was collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including his/her age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for individual interview. In addition, information was collected about the dwelling itself, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used to construct the house, and ownership of various consumer goods.

The Women’s Questionnaire was used to collect information from ever-married women age 10-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: · Background characteristics (age, education, religion, etc.) · Reproductive history · Knowledge and use of family planning methods · Antenatal and delivery care · Breastfeeding and weaning practices · Vaccinations and health of children under age five · Marriage · Fertility preferences · Husband’s background and respondent’s work · Height and weight of children under age five and of their mother · HIV and AIDS.

The Men’s Questionnaire was similar to that for women except that it omitted the sections on reproductive history, antenatal and delivery care, breastfeeding, vaccinations, and height and weight. The questionnaire for the Service Provision Assessment was completed for each sample point and included questions about the existence in the community of income-generating activities and other development organizations and the availability and accessibility of health and family planning services. Detailed analysis of the SPA data will be presented in a separate report.

Cleaning operations

All questionnaires for the BDHS survey were returned to Dhaka for data processing at Mitra and Associates. The processing operation consisted of office editing, coding of open-ended questions, data entry, and editing inconsistencies found by the computer programs. The data were processed on six microcomputers working in double shifts and carried out by ten data entry operators and two data entry supervisors. The BDHS data entry and editing programs were written in ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis). Data processing commenced in mid-December 1999 and was completed by end of April 2000.

Response rate

A total of 10,268 households were selected for the sample, of which 9,854 were successfully interviewed. The shortfall is primarily due to dwellings that were vacant or in which the inhabitants had left for an extended period at the time they were visited by the interviewing teams. Of the 9,922 households occupied, 99 percent were successfully interviewed. In these households, 10,885 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview (i.e., ever-married and age 10-49) and interviews were completed for 10,544 or 97 percent of them. In the one-third of the households that were selected for inclusion in the men’s survey, 2,817 currently married men age 15-59 were identified, of which 2,556 or 91 percent were interviewed.

The principal reason for nonresponse among eligible women and men was the failure to find them at home despite repeated visits to the household. The nonresponse rate was low.

Note: See summarized response rates by residence (urban/rural) in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were

Abstract

The primary objective of the 2018 NDHS is to provide up-to-date estimates of basic demographic and health indicators. Specifically, the NDHS collected information on fertility, awareness and use of family planning methods, breastfeeding practices, nutritional status of women and children, maternal and child health, adult and childhood mortality, women’s empowerment, domestic violence, female genital cutting, prevalence of malaria, awareness and behaviour regarding HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), disability, and other health-related issues such as smoking.

The information collected through the 2018 NDHS is intended to assist policymakers and programme managers in evaluating and designing programmes and strategies for improving the health of the country’s population. The 2018 NDHS also provides indicators relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Nigeria.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15-49

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), all women aged 15-49 years resident in the household, and all children aged 0-5 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame used for the 2018 NDHS is the Population and Housing Census of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (NPHC), which was conducted in 2006 by the National Population Commission. Administratively, Nigeria is divided into states. Each state is subdivided into local government areas (LGAs), and each LGA is divided into wards. In addition to these administrative units, during the 2006 NPHC each locality was subdivided into convenient areas called census enumeration areas (EAs). The primary sampling unit (PSU), referred to as a cluster for the 2018 NDHS, is defined on the basis of EAs from the 2006 EA census frame. Although the 2006 NPHC did not provide the number of households and population for each EA, population estimates were published for 774 LGAs. A combination of information from cartographic material demarcating each EA and the LGA population estimates from the census was used to identify the list of EAs, estimate the number of households, and distinguish EAs as urban or rural for the survey sample frame. Before sample selection, all localities were classified separately into urban and rural areas based on predetermined minimum sizes of urban areas (cut-off points); consistent with the official definition in 2017, any locality with more than a minimum population size of 20,000 was classified as urban.

The sample for the 2018 NDHS was a stratified sample selected in two stages. Stratification was achieved by separating each of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory into urban and rural areas. In total, 74 sampling strata were identified. Samples were selected independently in every stratum via a two-stage selection. Implicit stratifications were achieved at each of the lower administrative levels by sorting the sampling frame before sample selection according to administrative order and by using a probability proportional to size selection during the first sampling stage.

For further details on sample selection, see Appendix A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Four questionnaires were used for the 2018 NDHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Woman’s Questionnaire, the Man’s Questionnaire, and the Biomarker Questionnaire. The questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s standard Demographic and Health Survey (DHS-7) questionnaires, were adapted to reflect the population and health issues relevant to Nigeria. Comments were solicited from various stakeholders representing government ministries and agencies, nongovernmental organisations, and international donors. In addition, information about the fieldworkers for the survey was collected through a self-administered Fieldworker Questionnaire.

Cleaning operations

The processing of the 2018 NDHS data began almost immediately after the fieldwork started. As data collection was completed in each cluster, all electronic data files were transferred via the IFSS to the NPC central office in Abuja. These data files were registered and checked for inconsistencies, incompleteness, and outliers. The field teams were alerted to any inconsistencies and errors. Secondary editing, carried out in the central office, involved resolving inconsistencies and coding the open-ended questions. The NPC data processor coordinated the exercise at the central office. The biomarker paper questionnaires were compared with electronic data files to check for any inconsistencies in data entry. Data entry and editing were carried out using the CSPro software package. The concurrent processing of the data offered a distinct advantage because it maximised the likelihood of the data being error-free and accurate. Timely generation of field check tables allowed for effective monitoring. The secondary editing of the data was completed in the second week of April 2019.

Response rate

A total of 41,668 households were selected for the sample, of which 40,666 were occupied. Of the occupied households, 40,427 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the households interviewed, 42,121 women age 15-49 were identified for individual interviews; interviews were completed with 41,821 women, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the subsample of households selected for the male survey, 13,422 men age 15-59 were identified and 13,311 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) to minimise this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2018 NDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

Sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95% of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2018 NDHS sample is the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed in SAS, using programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearisation method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: A more detailed description of estimates of sampling errors are presented in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar years - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months - Standardisation exercise results from anthropometry training - Height and weight data completeness and quality for children - Height measurements from random subsample of measured children - Sibship size and sex ratio of siblings - Pregnancy-related mortality trends - Data collection period - Malaria prevalence according to rapid diagnostic test (RDT)

Note: See detailed data quality tables in APPENDIX C of the report.

These data were developed by the Research & Analytics Group 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 2018-2022 Data Manifest. 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:_e22Estimate from 2018-22 ACS_m22Margin of Error from 2018-22 ACS_e102006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_m10Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_e10_22Change, 2010-22 (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)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 2018-2022). 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: 2018-2022Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the data manifest: https://opendata.atlantaregional.com/documents/3b86ee614e614199ba66a3ff1ebfe3b5/about

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group 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 2016-2020 Data Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

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:

_e20

Estimate from 2016-20 ACS

_m20

Margin of Error from 2016-20 ACS

_e10

2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography

_m10

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography

_e10_20

Change, 2010-20 (holding constant at 2020 geography)

Geographies

AAA = Area Agency on Aging (12 geographic units formed from counties providing statewide coverage)

ARWDB7 = Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board (7 counties merged to a single geographic unit)

Census Tracts (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 Planning Unit STV (subarea of City of Atlanta)

City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas (City of Atlanta)

County (statewide)

Georgia House (statewide)

Georgia Senate (statewide)

MetroWater15 = Atlanta Metropolitan Water District (15 counties merged to a single geographic unit)

Regional Commissions (statewide)

State of Georgia (statewide)

Superdistrict (ARC region)

US Congress (statewide)

UWGA13 = United Way of Greater Atlanta (13 counties merged to a single geographic unit)

WFF = Westside Future Fund (subarea of City of Atlanta)

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 2016-2020). 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 Commission Date: 2016-2020 Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)

Link to the manifest: https://opendata.atlantaregional.com/documents/GARC::acs-2020-data-manifest/about

Millennials were the largest generation group in the U.S. in 2023, with an estimated population of 72.7 million. Born between 1981 and 1996, Millennials recently surpassed Baby Boomers as the biggest group, and they will continue to be a major part of the population for many years. The rise of Generation Alpha Generation Alpha is the most recent to have been named, and many group members will not be able to remember a time before smartphones and social media. However, the group already makes up around 42.75 percent of the U.S. population, and they are said to be the most racially and ethnically diverse of all the generation groups, with the oldest Generation Alpha members aging into adolescents this year. Boomers vs. Millennials The number of Baby Boomers, whose generation was defined by the boom in births following the Second World War, has fallen by around seven million since 2010. However, they remain the second-largest generation group, and aging Boomers are contributing to steady increases in the median age of the population. Meanwhile, the Millennial generation continues to grow, and one reason for this is the increasing number of young immigrants arriving in the United States.