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

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.

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.

A dataset listing Georgia cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Florida cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Washington cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing New York cities by population for 2024.

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.

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

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. 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 2018.

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

Unadjusted decennial census data from 1950-2000 and projected figures from 2010-2040: summary table of New York City population numbers and percentage share by Borough, including school-age (5 to 17), 65 and Over, and total population.

A dataset listing New Mexico cities by population for 2024.

• The current US Census Bureau world population estimate in June 2019 shows that the current global population is 7,577,130,400 people on Earth, which far exceeds the world population of 7.2 billion in 2015. Our estimate based on UN data shows the world's population surpassing 7.7 billion.
• China is the most populous country in the world with a population exceeding 1.4 billion. It is one of just two countries with a population of more than 1 billion, with India being the second. As of 2018, India has a population of over 1.355 billion people, and its population growth is expected to continue through at least 2050. By the year 2030, India is expected to become the most populous country in the world. This is because India’s population will grow, while China is projected to see a loss in population.
• The following 11 countries that are the most populous in the world each have populations exceeding 100 million. These include the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, Ethiopia, and the Philippines. Of these nations, all are expected to continue to grow except Russia and Japan, which will see their populations drop by 2030 before falling again significantly by 2050.
• Many other nations have populations of at least one million, while there are also countries that have just thousands. The smallest population in the world can be found in Vatican City, where only 801 people reside.
• In 2018, the world’s population growth rate was 1.12%. Every five years since the 1970s, the population growth rate has continued to fall. The world’s population is expected to continue to grow larger but at a much slower pace. By 2030, the population will exceed 8 billion. In 2040, this number will grow to more than 9 billion. In 2055, the number will rise to over 10 billion, and another billion people won’t be added until near the end of the century. The current annual population growth estimates from the United Nations are in the millions - estimating that over 80 million new lives are added yearly.
• This population growth will be significantly impacted by nine specific countries which are situated to contribute to the population growth more quickly than other nations. These nations include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, and the United States of America. Particularly of interest, India is on track to overtake China's position as the most populous country by 2030. Additionally, multiple nations within Africa are expected to double their populations before fertility rates begin to slow entirely.

Content

• In this Dataset, we have Historical Population data for every Country/Territory in the world by different parameters like Area Size of the Country/Territory, Name of the Continent, Name of the Capital, Density, Population Growth Rate, Ranking based on Population, World Population Percentage, etc. >Dataset Glossary (Column-Wise):
• Rank: Rank by Population.
• CCA3: 3 Digit Country/Territories Code.
• Country/Territories: Name of the Country/Territories.
• Capital: Name of the Capital.
• Continent: Name of the Continent.
• 2022 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2022.
• 2020 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2020.
• 2015 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2015.
• 2010 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2010.
• 2000 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2000.
• 1990 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 1990.
• 1980 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 1980.
• 1970 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 1970.
• Area (km²): Area size of the Country/Territories in square kilometers.
• Density (per km²): Population Density per square kilometer.
• Growth Rate: Population Growth Rate by Country/Territories.
• World Population Percentage: The population percentage by each Country/Territories.

Data format and access

The database consists of full-text patient reviews, reflecting their dissatisfaction with healthcare quality. Materials in Russian have been posted in the «Review list» of the site infodoctor.ru. Publication period: July 2012 to August 2023. The database consists of 18,492 reviews covering 16 Russian cities with population of over one million. Data format: .xlsx.

Data access: 10.5281/zenodo.15257447

Data collection methodology

Based on the fact that negative reviews may be more reliable than positive ones, the authors carried out negative reviews from 16 Russian cities with a population of over one million, for which it was possible to collect representative samples (at least 1000 reviews for each city). We have extracted reviews from the one-star section of this site's guestbook, as they are reliably identified as negative. Duplicates were removed from the database. Personal data in comment texts have been replaced with "##########". The author's gender was determined manually based on his/her name or gender endings in the texts of reviews. Otherwise, we indicated "0" - gender cannot be determined.

For Moscow reviews, classification was carried out using manual markup methods - based on the majority of votes for the review class from 3 annotators (if at least one annotator indicated that it was impossible to determine, the review was classified as #N/A - impossible to clearly determine). For reviews from other cities, classification was made into 3 classes using machine learning methods based on logistic regression. The classification accuracy was 88%.

The medical specialties were distributed into large groups for the convenience of further analysis. The correspondence of medical specialties to large groups is presented in detail in Appendix 1.

Sample structure and description of variables

· CITY – the name of a city with a population of over a million (on a separate sheet – Moscow), the other 15 are Volgograd, Voronezh, Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Perm, Rostov-on-Don, Samara, St. Petersburg, Ufa, Chelyabinsk

· TEXT – review text

· GENDER – gender of the review author (2 – female, 1 – male, 0 – cannot be determined)

· CLASS_1 – group of reasons for dissatisfaction with medical care (M – issues of medical content, O – issues of organizational support and economic aspect, C – mixed (combined) class, #N/A – cannot be clearly determined)[1]

· CLASS_2 – group of reasons for dissatisfaction with medical care (0 – issues of medical content, 1 – issues of organizational support and economic aspect, 2 – mixed (combined) class, #N/A – cannot be clearly determined)

· DAY – day of the month the review was posted

· MONTH – month the review was posted

· YEAR – year the review was posted

· DOCTOR_OR_CLINIC – what or who is the review dedicated to – the doctor or the clinic

· SPEC – physician specialty (for observations where the review is dedicated to the physician)

· GROUP_SPEC – a large group of a physician’s specialty

· ID – observation identifier

Database application

The data are suitable for analyzing patient dissatisfaction trends with medical services in Russia over the period from July 2012 to August 2023. This dataset could be particularly useful for healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers interested in understanding patient experiences and identifying areas for quality improvement in Russian healthcare. Some potential applications include:

• Analyzing geographic patterns of patient complaints across different cities in Russia
• Examining trends in patient dissatisfaction over time
• Identifying common reasons for dissatisfaction with medical care
• Comparing dissatisfaction levels between different medical specialties
• Assessing gender differences in patient complaints

The database provides rich qualitative data through full-text review texts, allowing for in-depth analysis of patient experiences. The structured variables like city, date, doctor/clinic information, etc. enable quantitative analysis as well. This combination of qualitative and quantitative data makes it possible to gain a comprehensive understanding of patient dissatisfaction patterns in Russia's healthcare system over more than a decade.

For researchers specifically interested in healthcare quality issues, this dataset could serve as an important resource for studying patient experiences and outcomes in Russia's medical system. The longitudinal nature of the data (2012-2023) also allows for analysis of changes over time in patient satisfaction.

Overall, this database provides valuable insights into patient perceptions of healthcare quality that could inform policy decisions, quality improvement

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 Indiana cities by population for 2024.

Many residents of New York City speak more than one language; a number of them speak and understand non-English languages more fluently than English. This dataset, derived from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS), includes information on over 1.7 million limited English proficient (LEP) residents and a subset of that population called limited English proficient citizens of voting age (CVALEP) at the Community District level. There are 59 community districts throughout NYC, with each district being represented by a Community Board.

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