California was the state with the highest resident population in the United States in 2024, with 39.43 million people. Wyoming had the lowest population with about 590,000 residents. Living the American Dream Ever since the opening of the West in the United States, California has represented the American Dream for both Americans and immigrants to the U.S. The warm weather, appeal of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, as well as cities that stick in the imagination such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, help to encourage people to move to California. Californian demographics California is an extremely diverse state, as no one ethnicity is in the majority. Additionally, it has the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States. By 2040, the population of California is expected to increase by almost 10 million residents, which goes to show that its appeal, both in reality and the imagination, is going nowhere fast.

In 2023, the resident population of California was ***** million. This is a slight decrease from the previous year, with ***** million people in 2022. This makes it the most populous state in the U.S. Californian demographics Along with an increase in population, California’s gross domestic product (GDP) has also been increasing, from *** trillion U.S. dollars in 2000 to **** trillion U.S. dollars in 2023. In the same time period, the per-capita personal income has almost doubled, from ****** U.S. dollars in 2000 to ****** U.S. dollars in 2022. In 2023, the majority of California’s resident population was Hispanic or Latino, although the number of white residents followed as a close second, with Asian residents making up the third-largest demographic in the state. The dark side of the Golden State While California is one of the most well-known states in the U.S., is home to Silicon Valley, and one of the states where personal income has been increasing over the past 20 years, not everyone in California is so lucky: In 2023, the poverty rate in California was about ** percent, and the state had the fifth-highest rate of homelessness in the country during that same year, with an estimated ** homeless people per 10,000 of the population.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 55 counties in the California by White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each counties over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by White Population: This column displays the rank of counties in the California by their White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• counties: The counties for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• White Population: The White population of the counties is shown in this column.
• % of Total counties Population: This shows what percentage of the total counties population identifies as White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total California White Population: This tells us how much of the entire California White population lives in that counties. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 480 cities in the California by Hispanic White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Hispanic White Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the California by their Hispanic White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Hispanic White Population: The Hispanic White population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Hispanic White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total California Hispanic White Population: This tells us how much of the entire California Hispanic White population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

The Census Bureau released revised delineations for urban areas on December 29, 2022. The new criteria (contained in this Federal Register Notice) is based primarily on housing unit density measured at the census block level. The minimum qualifying threshold for inclusion as an urban area is an area that contains at least 2,000 housing units or has a population of at least 5,000 persons. It also eliminates the classification of areas as “urban clusters/urbanized areas”. This represents a change from 2010, where urban areas were defined as areas consisting of 50,000 people or more and urban clusters consisted of at least 2,500 people but less than 50,000 people with at least 1,500 people living outside of group quarters. Due to the new population thresholds for urban areas, 36 urban clusters in California are no longer considered urban areas, leaving California with 193 urban areas after the new criteria was implemented.

The State of California experienced an increase of 1,885,884 in the total urban population, or 5.3%. However, the total urban area population as a percentage of the California total population went down from 95% to 94.2%. For more information about the mapped data, download the Excel spreadsheet here.

Please note that some of the 2020 urban areas have different names or additional place names as a result of the inclusion of housing unit counts as secondary naming criteria.

Please note there are four urban areas that cross state boundaries in Arizona and Nevada. For 2010, only the parts within California are displayed on the map; however, the population and housing estimates represent the entirety of the urban areas. For 2020, the population and housing unit estimates pertains to the areas within California only.

Data for this web application was derived from the 2010 and 2020 Censuses (2010 and 2020 Census Blocks, 2020 Urban Areas, and Counties) and the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (2010 -Urban Areas) and can be found at data.census.gov.

For more information about the urban area delineations, visit the Census Bureau's Urban and Rural webpage and FAQ.

To view more data from the State of California Department of Finance, visit the Demographic Research Unit Data Hub.

More than 39 million people and 14.2 million households span more than 163,000 square miles of Californian’s urban, suburban and rural communities. California has the fifth largest economy in the world and is the most populous state in the nation, with nation-leading diversity in race, ethnicity, language and socioeconomic conditions. These characteristics make California amazingly unique amongst all 50 states, but also present significant challenges to counting every person and every household, no matter the census year. A complete and accurate count of a state’s population in a decennial census is essential. The results of the 2020 Census will inform decisions about allocating hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding to communities across the country for hospitals, fire departments, school lunch programs and other critical programs and services. The data collected by the United States Census Bureau (referred hereafter as U.S. Census Bureau) also determines the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and will be used to redraw State Assembly and Senate boundaries. California launched a comprehensive Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (referred to hereafter as the Campaign) to support an accurate and complete count of Californians in the 2020 Census. Due to the state’s unique diversity and with insights from past censuses, the Campaign placed special emphasis on the hardest-tocount Californians and those least likely to participate in the census. The California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (referred to hereafter as the Census Office) coordinated the State’s operations to complement work done nationally by the U.S. Census Bureau to reach those households most likely to be missed because of barriers, operational or motivational, preventing people from filling out the census. The Campaign, which began in 2017, included key phases, titled Educate, Motivate and Activate. Each of these phases were designed to make sure all Californians knew about the census, how to respond, their information was safe and their participation would help their communities for the next 10 years.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Population (LU1)

FULL MEASURE NAME Population estimates

LAST UPDATED October 2019

DESCRIPTION Population is a measurement of the number of residents that live in a given geographical area, be it a neighborhood, city, county or region.

DATA SOURCES U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census No link available (1960-1990) http://factfinder.census.gov (2000-2010)

California Department of Finance: Population and Housing Estimates Table E-6: County Population Estimates (1961-1969) Table E-4: Population Estimates for Counties and State (1971-1989) Table E-8: Historical Population and Housing Estimates (2001-2018) Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates (2011-2019) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census - via Longitudinal Tract Database Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University Population Estimates (1970 - 2010) http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Population Estimates (2011-2017) http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: Intercensal Estimates Estimates of the Intercensal Population of Counties (1970-1979) Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population (1980-1989) Population Estimates (1990-1999) Annual Estimates of the Population (2000-2009) Annual Estimates of the Population (2010-2017) No link available (1970-1989) http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/1990s/tables/MA-99-03b.txt http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/metro.html https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) All legal boundaries and names for Census geography (metropolitan statistical area, county, city, and tract) are as of January 1, 2010, released beginning November 30, 2010, by the U.S. Census Bureau. A Priority Development Area (PDA) is a locally-designated area with frequent transit service, where a jurisdiction has decided to concentrate most of its housing and jobs growth for development in the foreseeable future. PDA boundaries are current as of August 2019. For more information on PDA designation see http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/.

Population estimates for Bay Area counties and cities are from the California Department of Finance, which are as of January 1st of each year. Population estimates for non-Bay Area regions are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Decennial Census years reflect population as of April 1st of each year whereas population estimates for intercensal estimates are as of July 1st of each year. Population estimates for Bay Area tracts are from the decennial Census (1970 -2010) and the American Community Survey (2008-2012 5-year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Estimates of population density for tracts use gross acres as the denominator.

Population estimates for Bay Area PDAs are from the decennial Census (1970 - 2010) and the American Community Survey (2006-2010 5 year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Population estimates for PDAs are derived from Census population counts at the tract level for 1970-1990 and at the block group level for 2000-2017. Population from either tracts or block groups are allocated to a PDA using an area ratio. For example, if a quarter of a Census block group lies with in a PDA, a quarter of its population will be allocated to that PDA. Tract-to-PDA and block group-to-PDA area ratios are calculated using gross acres. Estimates of population density for PDAs use gross acres as the denominator.

Annual population estimates for metropolitan areas outside the Bay Area are from the Census and are benchmarked to each decennial Census. The annual estimates in the 1990s were not updated to match the 2000 benchmark.

The following is a list of cities and towns by geographical area: Big Three: San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland Bayside: Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Belmont, Belvedere, Berkeley, Brisbane, Burlingame, Campbell, Colma, Corte Madera, Cupertino, Daly City, East Palo Alto, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fairfax, Foster City, Fremont, Hayward, Hercules, Hillsborough, Larkspur, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Newark, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Pinole, Portola Valley, Redwood City, Richmond, Ross, San Anselmo, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sausalito, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, Union City, Vallejo, Woodside Inland, Delta and Coastal: American Canyon, Antioch, Benicia, Brentwood, Calistoga, Clayton, Cloverdale, Concord, Cotati, Danville, Dixon, Dublin, Fairfield, Gilroy, Half Moon Bay, Healdsburg, Lafayette, Livermore, Martinez, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Napa, Novato, Oakley, Orinda, Petaluma, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Rio Vista, Rohnert Park, San Ramon, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, St. Helena, Suisun City, Vacaville, Walnut Creek, Windsor, Yountville Unincorporated: all unincorporated towns

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) System (MTS). The MTS 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. The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place is usually a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs are often defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The boundaries of most incorporated places in this shapefile are as of January 1, 2024, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census, but some CDPs were added or updated through the 2024 BAS as well.

In 2023, the number of Hispanic and Latino residents in California had surpassed the number of White residents, with about ***** million Hispanics compared to ***** million White residents. California’s residents California has always held a special place in the American imagination as a place where people can start a new life and increase their personal fortunes. Perhaps due partly to this, California is the most populous state in the United States, with over ** million residents, which is a significant increase from the number of residents in 1960. California is also the U.S. state with the largest population of foreign born residents. The Californian economy The Californian economy is particularly strong and continually contributes a significant amount to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States. Its per-capita GDP is also high, which indicates a high standard of living for its residents. Additionally, the median household income in California has more than doubled from 1990 levels.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 55 counties in the California by Asian population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each counties over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Asian Population: This column displays the rank of counties in the California by their Asian population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• counties: The counties for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Asian Population: The Asian population of the counties is shown in this column.
• % of Total counties Population: This shows what percentage of the total counties population identifies as Asian. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total California Asian Population: This tells us how much of the entire California Asian population lives in that counties. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

The 1998 Dress Rehearsal was conducted as a prelude to the United States Census of Population and Housing, 2000, in the following locations: (1) Columbia, South Carolina, and surrounding areas, including the town of Irmo and the counties of Chester, Chesterfield, Darlington, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster, Lee, Marlboro, Newberry, Richland, and Union, (2) Sacramento, California, and (3) Menominee County, Wisconsin, including the Menominee American Indian Reservation. This collection contains map files showing various levels of geography (in the form of Census Tract Outline Maps, Voting District/State Legislative District Outline Maps, and County Block Maps), TIGER/Line digital files, and Corner Point files for the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal sites. The Corner Point data files contain the bounding latitude and longitude coordinates for each individual map sheet of the 1998 Dress Rehearsal Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 map products. These files include a sheet identifier, minimum and maximum longitude, minimum and maximum latitude, and the map scale (integer value) for each map sheet. The latitude and longitude coordinates are in decimal degrees and expressed as integer values with six implied decimal places. There is a separate Corner Point File for each of the three map types: County Block Map, Census Tract Outline Map, and Voting District/State Legislative District Outline Map. Each of the three map file types is provided in two formats: Portable Document Format (PDF), for viewing, and Hewlett-Packard Graphics Language (HP-GL) format, for plotting. The County Block Maps show the greatest detail and the most complete set of geographic information of all the maps. These large-scale maps depict the smallest geographic entities for which the Census Bureau presents data -- the census blocks -- by displaying the features that delineate them and the numbers that identify them. These maps show the boundaries, names, and codes for American Indian/Alaska Native areas, county subdivisions, places, census tracts, and, for this series, the geographic entities that the states delineated in Phase 2, Voting District Project, of the Redistricting Data Program. The HP-GL version of the County Block Maps is broken down into index maps and map sheets. The map sheets cover a small area, and the index maps are composed of multiple map sheets, showing the entire area. The intent of the County Block Map series is to provide a map for each county on the smallest possible number of map sheets at the maximum practical scale, dependent on the area size of the county and the density of the block pattern. The latter affects the display of block numbers and feature identifiers. The Census Tract Outline Maps show the boundaries and numbers of census tracts, and name the features underlying the boundaries. These maps also show the boundaries and names of counties, county subdivisions, and places. They identify census tracts in relation to governmental unit boundaries. The mapping unit is the county. These large-format maps are produced to support the P.L. 94-171 program and all other 1998 Dress Rehearsal data tabulations. The Voting District/State Legislative District Outline Maps show the boundaries and codes for voting districts as delineated by the states in Phase 2, Voting District Project, of the Redistricting Data Program. The features underlying the voting district boundaries are shown, as well as the names of these features. Additionally, for states that submit the information, these maps show the boundaries and codes for state legislative districts and their underlying features. These maps also show the boundaries of and names of American Indian/Alaska Native areas, counties, county subdivisions, and places. The scale of the district maps is optimized to keep the number of map sheets for each area to a minimum, but the scale and number of map sheets will vary by the area size of the county and the voting districts and state legislative districts delineated by the states. The Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal TIGER/Line Files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. The files contain information distributed over a series of record types for the spatial objects of a county. These TIGER/Line Files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER (Topological

Six metrics were used to determine Population Vulnerability: global population size, annual occurrence in the California Current System (CCS), percent of the population present in the CCS, threat status, breeding score, and annual adult survival. Global Population size (POP)—to determine population size estimates for each species we gathered information tabulated by American Bird Conservancy, Birdlife International, and other primary sources. Proportion of Population in CCS (CCSpop)—for each species, we generated the population size within the CCS by averaging region-wide population estimates, or by combining state estimates for California, Oregon, and Washington for each species (if estimates were not available for a region or state, “NA” was recorded in place of a value) and then dividing the CCSpop value by the estimated global population size (POP) to yield the percentage of the population occurring in the CCS. Annual Occurrence in the CCS (AO)—for each species, we estimated the number of months per year within the CCS and binned this estimate into three categories: 1–4 months, 5–8 months, or 9–12 months. Threat Status (TS)—for each species, we used the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) species threat status (IUCN 2014) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife national threat status lists (USFWS 2014) to determine TS values for each species. If available, we also evaluated threat status values from state and international agencies. Breeding Score (BR)—we determined the degree to which a species breeds and feeds its young in the CCS according to 3 categories: breeds in the CCS, may breed in the CCS, or does not breed in the CCS. Adult Survival (AS)—for each species, we referenced information to estimate adult annual survival, because adult survival among marine birds in general is the most important demographic factor that can affect population growth rate and therefore inform vulnerability. These data support the following publication: Adams, J., Kelsey, E.C., Felis J.J., and Pereksta, D.M., 2016, Collision and displacement vulnerability among marine birds of the California Current System associated with offshore wind energy infrastructure: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1154, 116 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161154. These data were revisied in June 2017 and the revision published in August 2017. Please be advised to use CCS_vulnerability_FINAL_VERSION_v9_PV.csv

New York was the most populous state in the union in the year 1900. It had the largest white population, for both native born and foreign born persons, and together these groups made up over 7.1 million of New York's 7.2 million inhabitants at this time. The United States' industrial centers to the north and northeast were one of the most important economic draws during this period, and states in these regions had the largest foreign born white populations. Ethnic minorities Immigration into the agricultural southern states was much lower than the north, and these states had the largest Black populations due to the legacy of slavery - this balance would begin to shift in the following decades as a large share of the Black population migrated to urban centers to the north during the Great Migration. The Japanese and Chinese populations at this time were more concentrated in the West, as these states were the most common point of entry for Asians into the country. The states with the largest Native American populations were to the west and southwest, due to the legacy of forced displacement - this included the Indian Territory, an unorganized and independent territory assigned to the Native American population in the early 1800s, although this was incorporated into Oklahoma when it was admitted into the union in 1907. Additionally, non-taxpaying Native Americans were historically omitted from the U.S. Census, as they usually lived in separate communities and could not vote or hold office - more of an effort was made to count all Native Americans from 1890 onward, although there are likely inaccuracies in the figures given here. Changing distribution Internal migration in the 20th century greatly changed population distribution across the country, with California and Florida now ranking among the three most populous states in the U.S. today, while they were outside the top 20 in 1900. The growth of Western states' populations was largely due to the wave of internal migration during the Great Depression, where unemployment in the east saw many emigrate to "newer" states in search of opportunity, as well as significant immigration from Latin America (especially Mexico) and Asia since the mid-1900s.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Population (LU1)

FULL MEASURE NAME
Population estimates

LAST UPDATED
February 2023

DESCRIPTION
Population is a measurement of the number of residents that live in a given geographical area, be it a neighborhood, city, county or region.

DATA SOURCE
California Department of Finance: Population and Housing Estimates - http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/
Table E-6: County Population Estimates (1960-1970)
Table E-4: Population Estimates for Counties and State (1970-2021)
Table E-8: Historical Population and Housing Estimates (1990-2010)
Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates (2010-2021)

Bay Area Jurisdiction Centroids (2020) - https://data.bayareametro.gov/Boundaries/Bay-Area-Jurisdiction-Centroids-2020-/56ar-t6bs
Computed using 2020 US Census TIGER boundaries

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census Population Estimates - http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm- via Longitudinal Tract Database Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University
1970-2020

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey (5-year rolling average; tract) - https://data.census.gov/
2011-2021
Form B01003

Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050) - https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/about

CONTACT INFORMATION
vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator)
All historical data reported for Census geographies (metropolitan areas, county, city and tract) use current legal boundaries and names. A Priority Development Area (PDA) is a locally-designated area with frequent transit service, where a jurisdiction has decided to concentrate most of its housing and jobs growth for development in the foreseeable future. PDA boundaries are current as of December 2022.

Population estimates for Bay Area counties and cities are from the California Department of Finance, which are as of January 1st of each year. Population estimates for non-Bay Area regions are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Decennial Census years reflect population as of April 1st of each year whereas population estimates for intercensal estimates are as of July 1st of each year. Population estimates for Bay Area tracts are from the decennial Census (1970-2020) and the American Community Survey (2011-2021 5-year rolling average). Estimates of population density for tracts use gross acres as the denominator.

Population estimates for Bay Area tracts and PDAs are from the decennial Census (1970-2020) and the American Community Survey (2011-2021 5-year rolling average). Population estimates for PDAs are allocated from tract-level Census population counts using an area ratio. For example, if a quarter of a Census tract lies with in a PDA, a quarter of its population will be allocated to that PDA. Estimates of population density for PDAs use gross acres as the denominator. Note that the population densities between PDAs reported in previous iterations of Vital Signs are mostly not comparable due to minor differences and an updated set of PDAs (previous iterations reported Plan Bay Area 2040 PDAs, whereas current iterations report Plan Bay Area 2050 PDAs).

The following is a list of cities and towns by geographical area:

Big Three: San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Bayside: Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Belmont, Belvedere, Berkeley, Brisbane, Burlingame, Campbell, Colma, Corte Madera, Cupertino, Daly City, East Palo Alto, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fairfax, Foster City, Fremont, Hayward, Hercules, Hillsborough, Larkspur, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Newark, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Pinole, Portola Valley, Redwood City, Richmond, Ross, San Anselmo, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sausalito, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, Union City, Vallejo, Woodside

Inland, Delta and Coastal: American Canyon, Antioch, Benicia, Brentwood, Calistoga, Clayton, Cloverdale, Concord, Cotati, Danville, Dixon, Dublin, Fairfield, Gilroy, Half Moon Bay, Healdsburg, Lafayette, Livermore, Martinez, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Napa, Novato, Oakley, Orinda, Petaluma, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Rio Vista, Rohnert Park, San Ramon, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, St. Helena, Suisun City, Vacaville, Walnut Creek, Windsor, Yountville

Unincorporated: all unincorporated towns

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of 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. The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The boundaries of most incorporated places in this shapefile are as of January 1, 2022, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census, but some CDPs were added or updated through the 2022 BAS as well.

Most-viewed state metrics for California including population, median age, income, education, poverty, uninsured, and broadband.

Graph and download economic data for Population Estimate, Total (5-year estimate) in Fresno County, CA (B03002001E006019) from 2009 to 2023 about Fresno County, CA; Fresno; estimate; CA; 5-year; persons; population; and USA.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of 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. The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The boundaries of most incorporated places in this shapefile are as of January 1, 2023, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census, but some CDPs were added or updated through the 2023 BAS as well.

20 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2020.

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.

Relative concentration of the Central California region's Asian American population. The variable ASIANALN records all individuals who select Asian as their SOLE racial identity in response to the Census questionnaire, regardless of their response to the Hispanic ethnicity question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic in the Census questionnaire are potentially associated with the Asian race alone.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as ASIANALN alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 4,961 block groups in the Central California RRK region that identify as ASIANALN alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of ASIANALN individuals compared to the Central California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then ASIANALN individuals are highly concentrated locally.