This map's colors indicate which population is larger in each area: urban (green) or rural (yellow). The map's layers contain total population counts by sex, age, and race groups for Nation, State Legislative Districts Upper, State Legislative Districts Lower, Congressional District in the United States and Puerto Rico.The U.S. Census designates each census block as part of an urban area or as rural. Larger geographies in this map such as block group, tract, county and state can therefore have a mix of urban and rural population. This map illustrates the 100% urban areas in dark green, and 100% rural areas in dark yellow. Areas with mixed urban/rural population have softer shades of green or yellow, to give a visual indication of where change may be happening. From the Census:"The Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification is a delineation of geographic areas, identifying both individual urban areas and the rural area of the nation. The Census Bureau’s urban areas represent densely developed territory, and encompass residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. The Census Bureau delineates urban areas after each decennial census by applying specified criteria to decennial census and other data. Rural encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.For the 2020 Census, an urban area will comprise a densely settled core of census blocks that meet minimum housing unit density and/or population density requirements. This includes adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses. To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,000 housing units or have a population of at least 5,000." SourceAbout the dataYou can use this map as is and you can also modify it to use other attributes included in its layers. This map's layers contain total population counts by sex, age, and race groups data from the 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics. This is shown by Nation, State, County, Census Tract, Block Group boundaries. Each geography layer contains a common set of Census counts based on available attributes from the U.S. Census Bureau. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis.Vintage of boundaries and attributes: 2020 Demographic and Housing Characteristics Table(s): P1, H1, H3, P2, P3, P5, P12, P13, P17, PCT12 (Not all lines of these DHC tables are available in this feature layer.)Data downloaded from: U.S. Census Bureau’s data.census.gov siteDate the Data was Downloaded: May 25, 2023Geography Levels included: Nation, State, County, Census Tract, Block GroupNational Figures: included in Nation layer The United States Census Bureau Demographic and Housing Characteristics: 2020 Census Results 2020 Census Data Quality Geography & 2020 Census Technical Documentation Data Table Guide: includes the final list of tables, lowest level of geography by table and table shells for the Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics.News & Updates This map is ready to be used in ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online and its configurable apps, Story Maps, dashboards, Notebooks, Python, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the U.S. Census Bureau when using this data. Data Processing Notes: These 2020 Census boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For Census tracts and block groups, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract and block group boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2020 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are unchanged and available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters).  The layer contains all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico. Census tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99). Block groups that fall within the same criteria (Block Group denoted as 0 with no area land) have also been removed.Percentages and derived counts, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name). Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the Data Table Guide for the Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics. Not all lines of all tables listed above are included in this layer. Duplicative counts were dropped. For example, P0030001 was dropped, as it is duplicative of P0010001.To protect the privacy and confidentiality of respondents, their data has been protected using differential privacy techniques by the U.S. Census Bureau.

View the diversity of challenges and opportunities across America's counties within different types of rural regions and communities. Get statistics on people, jobs, and agriculture.

United States US: Rural Population: % of Total Population data was reported at 17.942 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 18.138 % for 2016. United States US: Rural Population: % of Total Population data is updated yearly, averaging 24.985 % from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 30.004 % in 1960 and a record low of 17.942 % in 2017. United States US: Rural Population: % of Total Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Rural population refers to people living in rural areas as defined by national statistical offices. It is calculated as the difference between total population and urban population.; ; World Bank staff estimates based on the United Nations Population Division's World Urbanization Prospects: 2018 Revision.; Weighted average;

The 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes form a classification scheme that distinguishes metropolitan counties by the population size of their metro area, and nonmetropolitan counties by degree of urbanization and adjacency to a metro area. The official Office of Management and Budget (OMB) metro and nonmetro categories have been subdivided into three metro and six nonmetro categories. Each county in the U.S. is assigned one of the 9 codes. This scheme allows researchers to break county data into finer residential groups, beyond metro and nonmetro, particularly for the analysis of trends in nonmetro areas that are related to population density and metro influence. The Rural-Urban Continuum Codes were originally developed in 1974. They have been updated each decennial since (1983, 1993, 2003, 2013), and slightly revised in 1988. Note that the 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes are not directly comparable with the codes prior to 2000 because of the new methodology used in developing the 2000 metropolitan areas. See the Documentation for details and a map of the codes. An update of the Rural-Urban Continuum Codes is planned for mid-2023.

This table uses U.S. Census data to create a dataset that identifies all Virginia localities as either Mostly Urban, Mostly Rural or Completely Rural. Total population and breakdown between urban and rural populations are included.

For information on the U.S. Census Bureau's use of these designations see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html. (Source data for this dataset is found at this link and is titled "County Classification Lookup Table [XLS]".)

Rural population (% of total population) in United States was reported at 16.48 % in 2024, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. United States - Rural population - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on July of 2025.

This study was undertaken to enable cross-community analysis of gang trends in all areas of the United States. It was also designed to provide a comparative analysis of social, economic, and demographic differences among non-metropolitan jurisdictions in which gangs were reported to have been persistent problems, those in which gangs had been more transitory, and those that reported no gang problems. Data were collected from four separate sources and then merged into a single dataset using the county Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code as the attribute of common identification. The data sources included: (1) local police agency responses to three waves (1996, 1997, and 1998) of the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS), (2) rural-urban classification and county-level measures of primary economic activity from the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, (3) county-level economic and demographic data from the County and City Data Book, 1994, and from USA Counties, 1998, produced by the United States Department of Commerce, and (4) county-level data on access to interstate highways provided by Tom Ricketts and Randy Randolph of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Variables include the FIPS codes for state, county, county subdivision, and sub-county, population in the agency jurisdiction, type of jurisdiction, and whether the county was dependent on farming, mining, manufacturing, or government. Other variables categorizing counties include retirement destination, federal lands, commuting, persistent poverty, and transfer payments. The year gang problems began in that jurisdiction, number of youth groups, number of active gangs, number of active gang members, percent of gang members who migrated, and the number of gangs in 1996, 1997, and 1998 are also available. Rounding out the variables are unemployment rates, median household income, percent of persons in county below poverty level, percent of family households that were one-parent households, percent of housing units in the county that were vacant, had no telephone, or were renter-occupied, resident population of the county in 1990 and 1997, change in unemployment rates, land area of county, percent of persons in the county speaking Spanish at home, and whether an interstate highway intersected the county.

Each year, the Forecasting and Trends Office (FTO) publishes population estimates and future year projections based on the population estimates developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. This dataset contains boundaries for each county’s 2010 rural (non-urban) area in the State of Florida with 2020 census population and 2021 population estimates. The population estimates can be used for a variety of planning studies including statewide and regional transportation plan updates, subarea and corridor studies, and funding allocations for various planning agencies.Each year, the Forecasting and Trends Office (FTO) publishes population estimates and future year projections. The population estimates can be used for a variety of planning studies including statewide and regional transportation plan updates, subarea and corridor studies, and funding allocations for various planning agencies.The 2020 population estimates reported are based on the US Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census. The 2021 population estimates are based on the population estimates developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. BEBR uses the decennial census count for April 1, 2020, as the starting point for state-level projections. More information is available from BEBR here.This dataset contains boundaries for each county’s 2010 rural (non-urban) area in the State of Florida with 2020 census population and 2021 population estimates. All legal boundaries and names in this dataset are from the US Census Bureau’s TIGER/Line Files (2021).For the 2010 Census, urban areas comprised a “densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core.” “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Please see the Data Dictionary for more information on data fields. Data Sources:US Census Bureau 2020 Decennial CensusUS Census Bureau’s TIGER/Line Files (2021)Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) – Florida Estimates of Population 2021 Data Coverage: StatewideData Time Period: 2020 – 2021 Date of Publication: July 2022 Point of Contact:Dana Reiding, ManagerForecasting and Trends OfficeFlorida Department of TransportationDana.Reiding@dot.state.fl.us605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399850-414-4719

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued on May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

The surveillance case definition for COVID-19, a nationally notifiable disease, was first described in a position statement from the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which was later revised. However, there is some variation in how jurisdictions implemented these case definitions. More information on how CDC collects COVID-19 case surveillance data can be found at FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were reported from state and local health departments through a robust process with the following steps:

• Aggregate county-level counts were obtained indirectly, via automated overnight web collection, or directly, via a data submission process.
• If more than one official county data source existed, CDC used a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source to retrieve the highest case and death counts, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• A CDC data team reviewed counts for congruency prior to integration and set up alerts to monitor for discrepancies in the data.
• CDC routinely compiled these data and post the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data were aggregated to obtain state- and territory- specific totals.
• Counting of cases and deaths is based on date of report and not on the date of symptom onset. CDC calculates rates in these data by using population estimates provided by the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).
• COVID-19 aggregate case and death data are organized in a time series that includes cumulative number of cases and deaths as reported by a jurisdiction on a given date. New case and death counts are calculated as the week-to-week change in cumulative counts of cases and deaths reported (i.e., newly reported cases and deaths = cumulative number of cases/deaths reported this week minus the cumulative total reported the prior week.

This process was collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provided the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. Throughout data collection, CDC retrospectively updated counts to correct known data quality issues.

Description This archived public use dataset focuses on the cumulative and weekly case and death rates per 100,000 persons within various sociodemographic factors across all states and their counties. All resulting data are expressed as rates calculated as the number of cases or deaths per 100,000 persons in counties meeting various classification criteria using the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).

Each county within jurisdictions is classified into multiple categories for each factor. All rates in this dataset are based on classification of counties by the characteristics of their population, not individual-level factors. This applies to each of the available factors observed in this dataset. Specific factors and their corresponding categories are detailed below.

Population-level factors Each unique population factor is detailed below. Please note that the “Classification” column describes each of the 12 factors in the dataset, including a data dictionary describing what each numeric digit means within each classification. The “Category” column uses numeric digits (2-6, depending on the factor) defined in the “Classification” column.

Metro vs. Non-Metro – “Metro_Rural” Metro vs. Non-Metro classification type is an aggregation of the 6 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural classifications, where “Metro” counties include Large Central Metro, Large Fringe Metro, Medium Metro, and Small Metro areas and “Non-Metro” counties include Micropolitan and Non-Core (Rural) areas. 1 – Metro, including “Large Central Metro, Large Fringe Metro, Medium Metro, and Small Metro” areas 2 – Non-Metro, including “Micropolitan, and Non-Core” areas

Urban/rural - “NCHS_Class” Urban/rural classification type is based on the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. Levels consist of:

1 Large Central Metro
2 Large Fringe Metro 3 Medium Metro 4 Small Metro 5 Micropolitan 6 Non-Core (Rural)

American Community Survey (ACS) data were used to classify counties based on their age, race/ethnicity, household size, poverty level, and health insurance status distributions. Cut points were generated by using tertiles and categorized as High, Moderate, and Low percentages. The classification “Percent non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander” is only available for “Hawaii” due to low numbers in this category for other available locations. This limitation also applies to other race/ethnicity categories within certain jurisdictions, where 0 counties fall into the certain category. The cut points for each ACS category are further detailed below:

Age 65 - “Age65”

1 Low (0-24.4%) 2 Moderate (>24.4%-28.6%) 3 High (>28.6%)

Non-Hispanic, Asian - “NHAA”

1 Low (<=5.7%) 2 Moderate (>5.7%-17.4%) 3 High (>17.4%)

Non-Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native - “NHIA”

1 Low (<=0.7%) 2 Moderate (>0.7%-30.1%) 3 High (>30.1%)

Non-Hispanic, Black - “NHBA”

1 Low (<=2.5%) 2 Moderate (>2.5%-37%) 3 High (>37%)

Hispanic - “HISP”

1 Low (<=18.3%) 2 Moderate (>18.3%-45.5%) 3 High (>45.5%)

Population in Poverty - “Pov”

1 Low (0-12.3%) 2 Moderate (>12.3%-17.3%) 3 High (>17.3%)

Population Uninsured- “Unins”

1 Low (0-7.1%) 2 Moderate (>7.1%-11.4%) 3 High (>11.4%)

Average Household Size - “HH”

1 Low (1-2.4) 2 Moderate (>2.4-2.6) 3 High (>2.6)

Community Vulnerability Index Value - “CCVI” COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI) scores are from Surgo Ventures, which range from 0 to 1, were generated based on tertiles and categorized as:

1 Low Vulnerability (0.0-0.4) 2 Moderate Vulnerability (0.4-0.6) 3 High Vulnerability (0.6-1.0)

Social Vulnerability Index Value – “SVI" Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) scores (vintage 2020), which also range from 0 to 1, are from CDC/ASTDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Service Program. Cut points for CCVI and SVI scores were generated based on tertiles and categorized as:

1 Low Vulnerability (0-0.333) 2 Moderate Vulnerability (0.334-0.666) 3 High Vulnerability (0.667-1)

The rural-urban commuting area codes (RUCA) classify U.S. census tracts using measures of urbanization, population density, and daily commuting from the decennial census. The most recent RUCA codes are based on data from the 2000 decennial census. The classification contains two levels. Whole numbers (1-10) delineate metropolitan, micropolitan, small town, and rural commuting areas based on the size and direction of the primary (largest) commuting flows. These 10 codes are further subdivided to permit stricter or looser delimitation of commuting areas, based on secondary (second largest) commuting flows. The approach errs in the direction of more codes, providing flexibility in combining levels to meet varying definitional needs and preferences. The 1990 codes are similarly defined. However, the Census Bureau's methods of defining urban cores and clusters changed between the two censuses. And, census tracts changed in number and shapes. The 2000 rural-urban commuting codes are not directly comparable with the 1990 codes because of these differences. An update of the Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes is planned for late 2013.

We used individual-level death data to estimate county-level life expectancy at 25 (e25) for Whites, Black, AIAN and Asian in the contiguous US for 2000-2005. Race-sex-stratified models were used to examine the associations among e25, rurality and specific race proportion, adjusted for socioeconomic variables. Individual death data from the National Center for Health Statistics were aggregated as death counts into five-year age groups by county and race-sex groups for the contiguous US for years 2000-2005 (National Center for Health Statistics 2000-2005). We used bridged-race population estimates to calculate five-year mortality rates. The bridged population data mapped 31 race categories, as specified in the 1997 Office of Management and Budget standards for the collection of data on race and ethnicity, to the four race categories specified under the 1977 standards (the same as race categories in mortality registration) (Ingram et al. 2003). The urban-rural gradient was represented by the 2003 Rural Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC), which distinguished metropolitan counties by population size, and nonmetropolitan counties by degree of urbanization and adjacency to a metro area (United States Department of Agriculture 2016). We obtained county-level sociodemographic data for 2000-2005 from the US Census Bureau. These included median household income, percent of population attaining greater than high school education (high school%), and percent of county occupied rental units (rent%). We obtained county violent crime from Uniform Crime Reports and used it to calculate mean number of violent crimes per capita (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2010). This dataset is not publicly accessible because: EPA cannot release personally identifiable information regarding living individuals, according to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This dataset contains information about human research subjects. Because there is potential to identify individual participants and disclose personal information, either alone or in combination with other datasets, individual level data are not appropriate to post for public access. Restricted access may be granted to authorized persons by contacting the party listed. It can be accessed through the following means: Request to author. Format: Data are stored as csv files. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Jian, Y., L. Neas, L. Messer, C. Gray, J. Jagai, K. Rappazzo, and D. Lobdell. Divergent trends in life expectancy across the rural-urban gradient among races in the contiguous United States. International Journal of Public Health. Springer Basel AG, Basel, SWITZERLAND, 64(9): 1367-1374, (2019).

PLURAL (Place-level urban-rural indices) is a framework to create continuous classifications of "rurality" or "urbanness" based on the spatial configuration of populated places. PLURAL makes use of the concept of "remoteness" to characterize the level of spatial isolation of a populated place with respect to its neighbors. There are two implementations of PLURAL, including (a) PLURAL-1, based on distances to the nearest places of user-specified population classes, and (b) PLURAL-2, based on neighborhood characterization derived from spatial networks. PLURAL requires simplistic input data, i.e., the coordinates (x,y) and population p of populated places (villages, towns, cities) in a given point in time. Due to its simplistic input, the PLURAL rural-urban classification scheme can be applied to historical data, as well as to data from data-scarce settings. Using the PLURAL framework, we created place-level rural-urban indices for the conterminous United States from 1930 to 2018. Rural-urban classifications are essential for analyzing geographic, demographic, environmental, and social processes across the rural-urban continuum. Most existing classifications are, however, only available at relatively aggregated spatial scales, such as at the county scale in the United States. The absence of rurality or urbanness measures at high spatial resolution poses significant problems when the process of interest is highly localized, as with the incorporation of rural towns and villages into encroaching metropolitan areas. Moreover, existing rural-urban classifications are often inconsistent over time, or require complex, multi-source input data (e.g., remote sensing observations or road network data), thus, prohibiting the longitudinal analysis of rural-urban dynamics. We developed a set of distance- and spatial-network-based methods for consistently estimating the remoteness and rurality of places at fine spatial resolution, over long periods of time. Based on these methods, we constructed indices of urbanness for 30,000 places in the United States from 1930 to 2018. We call these indices the place-level urban-rural index (PLURAL), enabling long-term, fine-grained analyses of urban and rural change in the United States. The method paper has been peer-reviewed and is published in "Landscape and Urban Planning". The PLURAL indices from 1930 to 2018 are available as CSV files, and as point-based geospatial vector data (.SHP). Moreover, we provide animated GIF files illustrating the spatio-temporal variation of the different variants of the PLURAL indices, illustrating the dynamics of the rural-urban continuum in the United States from 1930 to 2018. Apply the PLURAL rural-urban classification to your own data: Python code is fully open source and available at https://github.com/johannesuhl/plural. Data sources: Place-level population counts (1980-2010) and place locations 1930 - 2018 were obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, (University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org; Manson et al. 2022). Place-level population counts 1930-1970 were digitized from historical census records (U.S. Census Bureau 1942, 1964). References: Uhl, J.H., Hunter, L.M., Leyk, S., Connor, D.S., Nieves, J.J., Hester, C., Talbot, C. and Gutmann, M., 2023. Place-level urban–rural indices for the United States from 1930 to 2018. Landscape and Urban Planning, 236, p.104762. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104762 Steven Manson, Jonathan Schroeder, David Van Riper, Tracy Kugler, and Steven Ruggles. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 16.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. 2021. http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V16.0 U.S. Census Bureau (1942). U.S. Census of Population: 1940. Vol. I, Number of Inhabitants. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Census Bureau (1964). U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population. Part I, United States Summary. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

FHFA's Duty to Serve regulation defines "rural area" as: (i) A census tract outside of an MSA as designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); or (ii) A census tract in an MSA as designated by OMB that is: (A) Outside of the MSA’s Urbanized Areas as designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) Code #1, and outside of tracts with a housing density of over 64 housing units per square mile for USDA’s RUCA Code #2; or (B) A colonia census tract that does not satisfy paragraphs (i) or (ii)(A) of this definition. This data contains both the specific geographies which meet the Rural Areas definition and also the areas defined as “high-needs rural regions”.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Migration (EQ4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Migration flows

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Migration refers to the movement of people from one location to another, typically crossing a county or regional boundary. Migration captures both voluntary relocation – for example, moving to another region for a better job or lower home prices – and involuntary relocation as a result of displacement. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, and county tables.

DATA SOURCE American Community Survey County-to-County Migration Flows 2012-2015 5-year rolling average http://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/data/tables.All.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Data for migration comes from the American Community Survey; county-to-county flow datasets experience a longer lag time than other standard datasets available in FactFinder. 5-year rolling average data was used for migration for all geographies, as the Census Bureau does not release 1-year annual data. Data is not available at any geography below the county level; note that flows that are relatively small on the county level are often within the margin of error. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas, by aggregating county data based on current metropolitan area boundaries. Data prior to 2011 is not available on Vital Signs due to inconsistent Census formats and a lack of net migration statistics for prior years. Only counties with a non-negligible flow are shown in the data; all other pairs can be assumed to have zero migration.

Given that the vast majority of migration out of the region was to other counties in California, California counties were bundled into the following regions for simplicity: Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Tulare Los Angeles + Inland Empire: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura Sacramento: El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba San Diego: San Diego San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus Rural: all other counties (23)

One key limitation of the American Community Survey migration data is that it is not able to track emigration (movement of current U.S. residents to other countries). This is despite the fact that it is able to quantify immigration (movement of foreign residents to the U.S.), generally by continent of origin. Thus the Vital Signs analysis focuses primarily on net domestic migration, while still specifically citing in-migration flows from countries abroad based on data availability.

selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation.

After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the "urban footprint." There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes.

Access Constraints: None, Use Constraints:The TIGER/Line Shapefile products are not copyrighted however TIGER/Line and Census TIGER are registered trademarks of the U.S. Census Bureau. These products are free to use in a product or publication, however acknowledgement must be given to the U.S. Census Bureau as the source. The boundary information in the TIGER/Line Shapefiles are for statistical data collection and tabulation purposes only; their depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not constitute a determination of jurisdictional authority or rights of ownership or entitlement and they are not legal land descriptions.Coordinates in the TIGER/Line shapefiles have six implied decimal places, but the positional accuracy of these coordinates is not as great as the six decimal places suggest.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/2010-urban-rural.html

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

Each year, the Forecasting and Trends Office (FTO) publishes population estimates and future year projections based on the population estimates developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. This dataset contains boundaries for each county’s 2010 rural (non-urban) area in the State of Florida with 2020 census population and 2021 population estimates. The population estimates can be used for a variety of planning studies including statewide and regional transportation plan updates, subarea and corridor studies, and funding allocations for various planning agencies.Each year, the Forecasting and Trends Office (FTO) publishes population estimates and future year projections. The population estimates can be used for a variety of planning studies including statewide and regional transportation plan updates, subarea and corridor studies, and funding allocations for various planning agencies.The 2020 population estimates reported are based on the US Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census. The 2021 population estimates are based on the population estimates developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. BEBR uses the decennial census count for April 1, 2020, as the starting point for state-level projections. More information is available from BEBR here.This dataset contains boundaries for each county’s 2010 rural (non-urban) area in the State of Florida with 2020 census population and 2021 population estimates. All legal boundaries and names in this dataset are from the US Census Bureau’s TIGER/Line Files (2021).For the 2010 Census, urban areas comprised a “densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core.” “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Please see the Data Dictionary for more information on data fields. Data Sources:US Census Bureau 2020 Decennial CensusUS Census Bureau’s TIGER/Line Files (2021)Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) – Florida Estimates of Population 2021 Data Coverage: StatewideData Time Period: 2020 – 2021 Date of Publication: July 2022 Point of Contact:Dana Reiding, ManagerForecasting and Trends OfficeFlorida Department of TransportationDana.Reiding@dot.state.fl.us605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399850-414-4719

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Households not paying cash rent are excluded from the calculation of median gross rent..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Migration (EQ4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Migration flows

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Migration refers to the movement of people from one location to another, typically crossing a county or regional boundary. Migration captures both voluntary relocation – for example, moving to another region for a better job or lower home prices – and involuntary relocation as a result of displacement. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, and county tables.

DATA SOURCE American Community Survey County-to-County Migration Flows 2012-2015 5-year rolling average http://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/data/tables.All.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Data for migration comes from the American Community Survey; county-to-county flow datasets experience a longer lag time than other standard datasets available in FactFinder. 5-year rolling average data was used for migration for all geographies, as the Census Bureau does not release 1-year annual data. Data is not available at any geography below the county level; note that flows that are relatively small on the county level are often within the margin of error. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas, by aggregating county data based on current metropolitan area boundaries. Data prior to 2011 is not available on Vital Signs due to inconsistent Census formats and a lack of net migration statistics for prior years. Only counties with a non-negligible flow are shown in the data; all other pairs can be assumed to have zero migration.

Given that the vast majority of migration out of the region was to other counties in California, California counties were bundled into the following regions for simplicity: Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Tulare Los Angeles + Inland Empire: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura Sacramento: El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba San Diego: San Diego San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus Rural: all other counties (23)

One key limitation of the American Community Survey migration data is that it is not able to track emigration (movement of current U.S. residents to other countries). This is despite the fact that it is able to quantify immigration (movement of foreign residents to the U.S.), generally by continent of origin. Thus the Vital Signs analysis focuses primarily on net domestic migration, while still specifically citing in-migration flows from countries abroad based on data availability.

This dataset contains measures of the urban/rural characteristics of each census tract in the United States. These include proportions of urban and rural population, population density, rural/urban commuting area (RUCA) codes, and RUCA-based four- and seven- category urbanicity scales. A curated version of this data is available through ICPSR at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38606/versions/V1