All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

This dataset contains information about the demographics of all US cities and census-designated places with a population greater or equal to 65,000. This data comes from the US Census Bureau's 2015 American Community Survey. This product uses the Census Bureau Data API but is not endorsed or certified by the Census Bureau.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the California population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of California across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2024, the population of California was 39.43 million, a 0.59% increase year-by-year from 2023. Previously, in 2023, California population was 39.2 million, an increase of 0.14% compared to a population of 39.14 million in 2022. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2024, population of California increased by 5.44 million. In this period, the peak population was 39.52 million in the year 2020. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2024

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2024)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the California is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in California population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for California Population by Year. You can refer the same here

A dataset listing Georgia cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing New York cities by population for 2024.

The 2020 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. New England City and Town Area (NECTA) Divisions subdivide a NECTA containing a single core urban area that has a population of at least 2.5 million to form smaller groupings of cities and towns. NECTA Divisions are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of a main city or town that represents an employment center, plus adjacent cities and towns associated with the main city or town through commuting ties. Each NECTA Division must contain a total population of 100,000 or more. Because NECTA Divisions represent subdivisions of larger NECTAs, it is not appropriate to rank or compare NECTA Divisions with NECTAs. Not all NECTAs with urban areas of this size will contain NECTA Divisions. The generalized boundaries in this file are based on those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2020.

The "Major Cities" layer is derived from the "World Cities" dataset provided by ArcGIS Data and Maps group as part of the global data layers made available for public use. "Major cities" layer specifically contains National and Provincial capitals that have the highest population within their respective country. Cities were filtered based on the STATUS (“National capital”, “National and provincial capital”, “Provincial capital”, “National capital and provincial capital enclave”, and “Other”). Majority of these cities within larger countries have been filtered at the highest levels of POP_CLASS (“5,000,000 and greater” and “1,000,000 to 4,999,999”). However, China for example, was filtered with cities over 11 million people due to many highly populated cities. Population approximations are sourced from US Census and UN Data. Credits: ESRI, CIA World Factbook, GMI, NIMA, UN Data, UN Habitat, US Census Bureau Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

A dataset listing Oregon cities by population for 2024.

The 2019 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. In New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has defined an alternative county subdivision (generally cities and towns) based definition of Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) known as New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs). NECTAs are defined using the same criteria as Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and are identified as either metropolitan or micropolitan, based, respectively, on the presence of either an urban area of 50,000 or more population or an urban cluster of at least 10,000 and less than 50,000 population. A NECTA containing a single core urban area with a population of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of cities and towns referred to as NECTA Divisions. The generalized boundaries in this file are based on those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2015, 2017, and 2018.

A dataset listing Mississippi cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Wisconsin cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Washington cities by population for 2024.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the New York population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of New York across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2024, the population of New York was 19.87 million, a 0.66% increase year-by-year from 2023. Previously, in 2023, New York population was 19.74 million, an increase of 0.17% compared to a population of 19.7 million in 2022. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2024, population of New York increased by 870,289. In this period, the peak population was 20.11 million in the year 2020. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2024

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2024)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the New York is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in New York population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for New York Population by Year. You can refer the same here

The 2019 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. In New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has defined an alternative county subdivision (generally cities and towns) based definition of Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) known as New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs). NECTAs are defined using the same criteria as Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and are identified as either metropolitan or micropolitan, based, respectively, on the presence of either an urban area of 50,000 or more population or an urban cluster of at least 10,000 and less than 50,000 population. A NECTA containing a single core urban area with a population of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of cities and towns referred to as NECTA Divisions. The generalized boundaries in this file are based on those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2015, 2017, and 2018.

A dataset listing Colorado cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Virginia cities by population for 2024.

Metropolitan DivisionsThis feature layer, utilizing National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) data from the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), displays Metropolitan Divisions within the United States. According to the USCB, "Metropolitan Divisions subdivide a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) containing a single core urban area that has a population of at least 2.5 million to form smaller groupings of counties or equivalent entities. Not all MSAs with urban areas of this size will contain Metropolitan Divisions. Not all MSAs with urban areas of this size will contain Metropolitan Divisions. Metropolitan Division are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of one or more main counties or equivalent entities that represent an employment center or centers, plus adjacent counties associated with the main county or counties through commuting ties."Nassau County-Suffolk County, NY Metro Division & New Brunswick-Lakewood, NJ Metro DivisionData currency: This cached Esri federal service is checked weekly for updates from its enterprise federal source (Metropolitan Divisions) and will support mapping, analysis, data exports and OGC API – Feature access.NGDAID: 83 (Series Information for Metropolitan Division National TIGER/Line Shapefiles, Current)OGC API Features Link: (Metropolitan Divisions - OGC Features) copy this link to embed it in OGC Compliant viewersFor more information, please visit: Geographic LevelsFor feedback please contact: Esri_US_Federal_Data@esri.comNGDA Data SetThis data set is part of the NGDA Governmental Units, and Administrative and Statistical Boundaries Theme Community. Per the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC), this theme is defined as the "boundaries that delineate geographic areas for uses such as governance and the general provision of services (e.g., states, American Indian reservations, counties, cities, towns, etc.), administration and/or for a specific purpose (e.g., congressional districts, school districts, fire districts, Alaska Native Regional Corporations, etc.), and/or provision of statistical data (census tracts, census blocks, metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, etc.). Boundaries for these various types of geographic areas are either defined through a documented legal description or through criteria and guidelines. Other boundaries may include international limits, those of federal land ownership, the extent of administrative regions for various federal agencies, as well as the jurisdictional offshore limits of U.S. sovereignty. Boundaries associated solely with natural resources and/or cultural entities are excluded from this theme and are included in the appropriate subject themes."For other NGDA Content: Esri Federal Datasets

A dataset listing New Mexico cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Louisiana cities by population for 2024.