50 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2050.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents-up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020 the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents. Where these future residents will live and work is unclear. For most of the 20th Century, two-thirds of Californians have lived south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains-in that part of the state commonly referred to as Southern California. Yet most of coastal Southern California is already highly urbanized, and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. More recently, slow-growth policies in Northern California and declining developable land supplies in Southern California are squeezing ever more of the state's population growth into the San Joaquin Valley. How future Californians will occupy the landscape is also unclear. Over the last fifty years, the state's population has grown increasingly urban. Today, nearly 95 percent of Californians live in metropolitan areas, mostly at densities less than ten persons per acre. Recent growth patterns have strongly favored locations near freeways, most of which where built in the 1950s and 1960s. With few new freeways on the planning horizon, how will California's future growth organize itself in space? By national standards, California's large urban areas are already reasonably dense, and economic theory suggests that densities should increase further as California's urban regions continue to grow. In practice, densities have been rising in some urban counties, but falling in others.

These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will California have enough land of the appropriate types and in the right locations to accommodate its projected population growth? Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit, or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat? How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms, and residents, and where will that water be stored? Where should future highway, transit, and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically, and in terms of changes in California's quality of life? Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation, and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural, and bioregional planning.

Consider two scenarios for the year 2100. In the first, California's population would grow to 80 million persons and would occupy the landscape at an average density of eight persons per acre, the current statewide urban average. Under this scenario, and assuming that 10% percent of California's future population growth would occur through infill-that is, on existing urban land-California's expanding urban population would consume an additional 5.06 million acres of currently undeveloped land. As an alternative, assume the share of infill development were increased to 30%, and that new population were accommodated at a density of about 12 persons per acre-which is the current average density of the City of Los Angeles. Under this second scenario, California's urban population would consume an additional 2.6 million acres of currently undeveloped land. While both scenarios accommodate the same amount of population growth and generate large increments of additional urban development-indeed, some might say even the second scenario allows far too much growth and development-the second scenario is far kinder to California's unique natural landscape.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends. The next section, titled Approach, outlines the methodology and data used to develop the various projections. The following section, Baseline Scenario, reviews the projections themselves. A final section, entitled Baseline Impacts, quantitatively assesses the impacts of the baseline projections on wetland, hillside, farmland and habitat loss.

This dataset contains counts of live births for California counties based on information entered on birth certificates. Final counts are derived from static data and include out of state births to California residents, whereas provisional counts are derived from incomplete and dynamic data. Provisional counts are based on the records available when the data was retrieved and may not represent all births that occurred during the time period.

The final data tables include both births that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and births to California residents (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes births that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence). The data are reported as totals, as well as stratified by parent giving birth's age, parent giving birth's race-ethnicity, and birth place type. See temporal coverage for more information on which strata are available for which years.

These datasets focus on patients leaving California hospitals in 2019-2020 against medical advice (AMA), which is defined as choosing to leave the hospital before the treating physician recommends discharge. Patients leaving AMA are exposed to higher risks due to inadequately treated medical issues, which may result in the need for readmission.

People who have been granted permanent resident status in Canada. Please note that in these datasets, the figures have been suppressed or rounded to prevent the identification of individuals when the datasets are compiled and compared with other publicly available statistics. Values between 0 and 5 are shown as “--“ and all other values are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5. This may result to the sum of the figures not equating to the totals indicated.

Annual number of interprovincial migrants by province of origin and destination, Canada, provinces and territories.

Number, rate and percentage changes in rates of homicide victims, Canada, provinces and territories, 1961 to 2023.

This dataset includes all break and enter occurrences by reported date and related offences since 2014.Break and Enter DashboardDownload DocumentationThis data is provided at the offence and/or victim level, therefore one occurrence number may have several rows of data associated to the various MCIs used to categorize the occurrence.The downloadable datasets display the REPORT_DATE and OCC_DATE fields in UTC timezone.This data does not include occurrences that have been deemed unfounded. The definition of unfounded according to Statistics Canada is: “It has been determined through police investigation that the offence reported did not occur, nor was it attempted” (Statistics Canada, 2020).**The dataset is intended to provide communities with information regarding public safety and awareness. The data supplied to the Toronto Police Service by the reporting parties is preliminary and may not have been fully verified at the time of publishing the dataset. The location of crime occurrences have been deliberately offset to the nearest road intersection node to protect the privacy of parties involved in the occurrence. All location data must be considered as an approximate location of the occurrence and users are advised not to interpret any of these locations as related to a specific address or individual.NOTE: Due to the offset of occurrence location, the numbers by Division and Neighbourhood may not reflect the exact count of occurrences reported within these geographies. Therefore, the Toronto Police Service does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness of the data and it should not be compared to any other source of crime data.By accessing these datasets, the user agrees to full acknowledgement of the Open Government Licence - Ontario.In accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Toronto Police Service has taken the necessary measures to protect the privacy of individuals involved in the reported occurrences. No personal information related to any of the parties involved in the occurrence will be released as open data. ** Statistics Canada. 2020. Uniform Crime Reporting Manual. Surveys and Statistical Programs. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

Incident-based crime statistics (actual incidents, rate per 100,000 population, percentage change in rate, unfounded incidents, percent unfounded, total cleared, cleared by charge, cleared otherwise, persons charged, adults charged, youth charged / not charged), by detailed violations (violent, property, traffic, drugs, other Federal Statutes), police services in Ontario, 1998 to 2023.

Annual population estimates by marital status or legal marital status, age and sex, Canada, provinces and territories.

Police-reported hate crime, by type of motivation (race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, disability, sex, age), selected regions and Canada (selected police services), 2014 to 2023.

This table provides quarterly estimates of the number of non-permanent residents by type for Canada, provinces and territories.

This table presents experimental counts of businesses that open, close, or continue their operations each month for various levels of geographic and industry detail across Canada going back to January 2015. The data are available as series that are adjusted for seasonality. The level of geographic detail includes national, provincial and territorial, as well as census metropolitan areas (CMA). The data are also broken down by two-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) with some common aggregations, including one for the total business sector for national, provincial and territorial levels of geography.

Components of international migratory increase, quarterly: immigrants, emigrants, returning emigrants, net temporary emigrants, net non-permanent residents.