According to a survey held among adults in the United States in February 2022, ABC and CBS were considered to be the most credible news sources in the country, with 61 percent of respondents believing the organizations to be very or somewhat credible. Sources which fared less well were MSNBC, Fox News, National Public Radio, and HuffPost, with less than 50 percent of adults agreeing that they found these to be reliable news outlets. The credibility of all the news sources in the ranking was higher in 2022 than in the previous year, though the figures in 2021 were particularly low.

Trust and bias in news Finding trustworthy, impartial news sources can be difficult for audiences in a world where fake news is in constant circulation and bias in news is a growing concern. More than 50 percent of total respondents to a survey held in early 2020 believed that there was a fair amount or great deal of bias in the news sources they used most often. The same study found that close to 70 percent of respondents were more concerned with bias in news that other people may consume than with their own news source.

A report exploring trust in news found that radio, network news, and newspapers were the most trusted news sources in the United States, whereas social media was not considered reliable in this regard. The lack of trust in news on social media has yet to affect consumption – social networks are the most used source of news among many consumers, particularly younger generations. In fact, some news consumers are moving away from official news platforms altogether and getting their updates from influencers rather than journalists.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Good Hope population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Good Hope. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Good Hope by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Good Hope.

Key observations

The largest age group in Good Hope, AL was for the group of age 30 to 34 years years with a population of 307 (12.08%), according to the ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in Good Hope, AL was the 85 years and over years with a population of 16 (0.63%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group in consideration
• Population: The population for the specific age group in the Good Hope is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of Good Hope total population. 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 Good Hope Population by Age. You can refer the same here

Eximpedia Export import trade data lets you search trade data and active Exporters, Importers, Buyers, Suppliers, manufacturers exporters from over 209 countries

This dataset provides valuable insights into the median and average hourly wages in the United States from 1973 to 2022.

The data is sourced from the Economic Policy Institute's (EPI) State of Working America Data Library, a trusted and reliable source for economic data.

Interesting Task Ideas:

1. Analyze the trends and patterns in median and average hourly wages over the years for different races and genders
2. Compare the wage growth rates for different demographic groups such as men, women, whites, blacks, Hispanics, recent high school graduates, and recent college graduates.
3. Investigate the wage gap between different demographic groups.
4. Examine the impact of economic events or policy changes on wages over time.
5. Visualize the data to present meaningful insights and trends to a wider audience.
6. Compare how education effects different genders

If you find this dataset valuable, consider showing your appreciation by upvoting it! 😊💝

Checkout my other datasets

Clash of Clans Clans Dataset 2023 (3.5M Clans)

USA Unemployment Rates by Demographics & Race

Pension Coverage in the USA

Productivity and Hourly Compensation

USA Hispanic-White Wage Gap Dataset

Photo by John McArthur on Unsplash

Abstract

Syngenta is committed to increasing crop productivity and to using limited resources such as land, water and inputs more efficiently. Since 2014, Syngenta has been measuring trends in agricultural input efficiency on a global network of real farms. The Good Growth Plan dataset shows aggregated productivity and resource efficiency indicators by harvest year. The data has been collected from more than 4,000 farms and covers more than 20 different crops in 46 countries. The data (except USA data and for Barley in UK, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, France and Spain) was collected, consolidated and reported by Kynetec (previously Market Probe), an independent market research agency. It can be used as benchmarks for crop yield and input efficiency.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Agricultural holdings

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A. Sample design Farms are grouped in clusters, which represent a crop grown in an area with homogenous agro- ecological conditions and include comparable types of farms. The sample includes reference and benchmark farms. The reference farms were selected by Syngenta and the benchmark farms were randomly selected by Kynetec within the same cluster.

B. Sample size Sample sizes for each cluster are determined with the aim to measure statistically significant increases in crop efficiency over time. This is done by Kynetec based on target productivity increases and assumptions regarding the variability of farm metrics in each cluster. The smaller the expected increase, the larger the sample size needed to measure significant differences over time. Variability within clusters is assumed based on public research and expert opinion. In addition, growers are also grouped in clusters as a means of keeping variances under control, as well as distinguishing between growers in terms of crop size, region and technological level. A minimum sample size of 20 interviews per cluster is needed. The minimum number of reference farms is 5 of 20. The optimal number of reference farms is 10 of 20 (balanced sample).

C. Selection procedure The respondents were picked randomly using a “quota based random sampling” procedure. Growers were first randomly selected and then checked if they complied with the quotas for crops, region, farm size etc. To avoid clustering high number of interviews at one sampling point, interviewers were instructed to do a maximum of 5 interviews in one village.

Screened China BF were from Licheng Town ( Liyang City, Jiangsu province) + Dinggou Town (Jiangdu District, Yangzhou city, Jiangsu province) + Shuikou Town (Tianchang city, Anhui Province) and were selected based on the following criterion: - Rice rotation with wheat growers (professional)
- Professional farmer with rice being main income source
- Mechanical planting
- Co-op operation: Co-op operation means a local professional farmer who leases small fragmented pieces of lands from his neighbors (consolidation) to make it bigger and commercial farming scale
- Receive tech supports from CP suppliers or dealers
- Hire labor
- Suggest mechanical, Co-op type of farmers as benchmark farms. Compare SYT vs generic products. Rice-wheat rotation.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Data collection tool for 2019 covered the following information:

(A) PRE- HARVEST INFORMATION

PART I: Screening PART II: Contact Information PART III: Farm Characteristics a. Biodiversity conservation b. Soil conservation c. Soil erosion d. Description of growing area e. Training on crop cultivation and safety measures PART IV: Farming Practices - Before Harvest a. Planting and fruit development - Field crops b. Planting and fruit development - Tree crops c. Planting and fruit development - Sugarcane d. Planting and fruit development - Cauliflower e. Seed treatment

(B) HARVEST INFORMATION

PART V: Farming Practices - After Harvest a. Fertilizer usage b. Crop protection products c. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Field crops d. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Tree crops e. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Sugarcane f. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Banana g. After harvest PART VI - Other inputs - After Harvest a. Input costs b. Abiotic stress c. Irrigation

See all questionnaires in external materials tab

Cleaning operations

Data processing:

Kynetec uses SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for data entry, cleaning, analysis, and reporting. After collection, the farm data is entered into a local database, reviewed, and quality-checked by the local Kynetec agency. In the case of missing values or inconsistencies, farmers are re-contacted. In some cases, grower data is verified with local experts (e.g. retailers) to ensure data accuracy and validity. After country-level cleaning, the farm-level data is submitted to the global Kynetec headquarters for processing. In the case of missing values or inconsistences, the local Kynetec office was re-contacted to clarify and solve issues.

Quality assurance Various consistency checks and internal controls are implemented throughout the entire data collection and reporting process in order to ensure unbiased, high quality data.

• Screening: Each grower is screened and selected by Kynetec based on cluster-specific criteria to ensure a comparable group of growers within each cluster. This helps keeping variability low.

• Evaluation of the questionnaire: The questionnaire aligns with the global objective of the project and is adapted to the local context (e.g. interviewers and growers should understand what is asked). Each year the questionnaire is evaluated based on several criteria, and updated where needed.

• Briefing of interviewers: Each year, local interviewers - familiar with the local context of farming -are thoroughly briefed to fully comprehend the questionnaire to obtain unbiased, accurate answers from respondents.

• Cross-validation of the answers: o Kynetec captures all growers' responses through a digital data-entry tool. Various logical and consistency checks are automated in this tool (e.g. total crop size in hectares cannot be larger than farm size) o Kynetec cross validates the answers of the growers in three different ways: 1. Within the grower (check if growers respond consistently during the interview) 2. Across years (check if growers respond consistently throughout the years) 3. Within cluster (compare a grower's responses with those of others in the group) o All the above mentioned inconsistencies are followed up by contacting the growers and asking them to verify their answers. The data is updated after verification. All updates are tracked.

• Check and discuss evolutions and patterns: Global evolutions are calculated, discussed and reviewed on a monthly basis jointly by Kynetec and Syngenta.

• Sensitivity analysis: sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the global results in terms of outliers, retention rates and overall statistical robustness. The results of the sensitivity analysis are discussed jointly by Kynetec and Syngenta.

• It is recommended that users interested in using the administrative level 1 variable in the location dataset use this variable with care and crosscheck it with the postal code variable.

Data appraisal

Due to the above mentioned checks, irregularities in fertilizer usage data were discovered which had to be corrected:

For data collection wave 2014, respondents were asked to give a total estimate of the fertilizer NPK-rates that were applied in the fields. From 2015 onwards, the questionnaire was redesigned to be more precise and obtain data by individual fertilizer products. The new method of measuring fertilizer inputs leads to more accurate results, but also makes a year-on-year comparison difficult. After evaluating several solutions to this problems, 2014 fertilizer usage (NPK input) was re-estimated by calculating a weighted average of fertilizer usage in the following years.

News audiences in the United States are more likely to trust local news than national news, a 2024 survey revealed, with ** percent of all respondents saying that they had a lot or some trust in local news, whereas just ** percent said the same about national news. Seven years earlier in 2016, the share of adults who felt that national news were a trustworthy source stood at ** percent, ** percent higher than in the 2024 survey.

This study tests the efficacy of an intervention--Safe Public Spaces (SPS) -- focused on improving the safety of public spaces in schools, such as hallways, cafeterias, and stairwells. Twenty-four schools with middle grades in a large urban area were recruited for participation and were pair-matched and then assigned to either treatment or control. The study comprises four components: an implementation evaluation, a cost study, an impact study, and a community crime study. Community-crime-study: The community crime study used the arrest of juveniles from the NYPD (New York Police Department) data. The data can be found at (https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYPD-Arrests-Data-Historic-/8h9b-rp9u). Data include all arrest for the juvenile crime during the life of the intervention. The 12 matched schools were identified and geo-mapped using Quantum GIS (QGIS) 3.8 software. Block groups in the 2010 US Census in which the schools reside and neighboring block groups were mapped into micro-areas. This resulted in twelve experimental school blocks and 11 control blocks which the schools reside (two of the control schools existed in the same census block group). Additionally, neighboring blocks using were geo-mapped into 70 experimental and 77 control adjacent block groups (see map). Finally, juvenile arrests were mapped into experimental and control areas. Using the ARIMA time-series method in Stata 15 statistical software package, arrest data were analyzed to compare the change in juvenile arrests in the experimental and control sites. Cost-study: For the cost study, information from the implementing organization (Engaging Schools) was combined with data from phone conversations and follow-up communications with staff in school sites to populate a Resource Cost Model. The Resource Cost Model Excel file will be provided for archiving. This file contains details on the staff time and materials allocated to the intervention, as well as the NYC prices in 2018 US dollars associated with each element. Prices were gathered from multiple sources, including actual NYC DOE data on salaries for position types for which these data were available and district salary schedules for the other staff types. Census data were used to calculate benefits. Impact-evaluation: The impact evaluation was conducted using data from the Research Alliance for New York City Schools. Among the core functions of the Research Alliance is maintaining a unique archive of longitudinal data on NYC schools to support ongoing research. The Research Alliance builds and maintains an archive of longitudinal data about NYC schools. Their agreement with the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE) outlines the data they receive, the process they use to obtain it, and the security measures to keep it safe. Implementation-study: The implementation study comprises the baseline survey and observation data. Interview transcripts are not archived.

Explore detailed Grape Juice Concentrate import data of Sure Good Foods Usa Inc in the USA—product details, price, quantity, origin countries, and US ports.

Geolocet offers a rich repository of European demographic data, providing you with a robust foundation for data-driven decisions. Our datasets encompass a diverse range of attributes, but it's important to note that the attributes available may vary significantly from country to country. This variation reflects the unique demographic reporting standards and data availability in each region.

Attributes include essential demographic factors such as Age Bands, Gender, and Marital Status, as a minimum. In some countries, we provide cross-referenced attributes, such as Marital Status per Age Band, Marital Status per Gender, or even intricate combinations like Marital Status per Gender and Age. Additionally, for select countries, we offer insights into income, employment status, household composition, housing status, and many more.

🌐 Trusted Source Data

Our demographic data is derived exclusively from official census sources, ensuring the highest level of accuracy and reliability. We take pride in using data that is available under open licenses for commercial use. However, it's important to note that our data is not a direct representation of the original census data. Instead, we use this source data to create comprehensive demographic models that are tailored to your needs.

🔄 Annual Data Updates

To keep your insights fresh and accurate, our data is updated once per year. We offer annual subscriptions, allowing you to access the latest demographic information and maintain the relevance of your analyses.

🌍 Geographic Coverage

While our demographic data spans across the majority of European countries and their administrative divisions' boundaries, it's important to inquire about specific attributes and coverage for each region of interest. We understand that your data needs may vary depending on your target regions, and our team is here to assist you in selecting the most relevant datasets for your objectives.

Contact us to explore our offerings and learn how our data can elevate your decision-making processes.

🌐 Enhanced with Spatial Insights: Administrative Boundaries Spatial Data

Geolocet's demographic data isn't limited to numbers; it's brought to life through seamless integration with our Administrative Boundaries Spatial Data. This integration offers precise boundary mapping, allowing you to visualize demographic distributions, patterns, and densities on a map. This spatial perspective unlocks geo patterns and insights, aiding in strategic decision-making. Whether you're planning localized marketing strategies, optimizing resource allocation, or selecting ideal expansion sites, the geographic context adds depth to your data-driven strategies. Contact us today to explore how this spatial synergy can enhance your decision-making.

🌍 Enhanced with Robust Aggregated POI Data

Geolocet doesn't stop at demographics; we enhance your analysis by offering Geolocet's POI Aggregated Data. This data source provides a comprehensive understanding of local areas, enabling you to craft detailed local area profiles. It's not just about numbers; it's about uncovering the essence of each locality.

🔍 Crafting Local Area Profiles

When you combine our POI Aggregated Data with our Demographics Data, you have the tools to craft insightful local area profiles. Dive into the specific data points for various sectors, such as the number of hospitals, schools, hotels, restaurants, pubs, casinos, groceries, clothing stores, gas stations, and more within designated areas. This level of granularity allows you to paint a vivid picture of each locality, understanding its unique characteristics and offerings.

Contact us today to explore how this synergy can elevate your strategic decision-making and enrich your insights into local communities.

🔍 Customized Data Solutions with DaaS

Geolocet's Data as a Service (DaaS) offers flexibility tailored to your needs. Our transparent pricing model ensures cost-efficiency, allowing you to pay only for the data you require.

Jurisdictional Unit, 2022-05-21. For use with WFDSS, IFTDSS, IRWIN, and InFORM.This is a feature service which provides Identify and Copy Feature capabilities. If fast-drawing at coarse zoom levels is a requirement, consider using the tile (map) service layer located at https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b2c5daad00742cd9f9b676c09d03d13.OverviewThe Jurisdictional Agencies dataset is developed as a national land management geospatial layer, focused on representing wildland fire jurisdictional responsibility, for interagency wildland fire applications, including WFDSS (Wildland Fire Decision Support System), IFTDSS (Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System), IRWIN (Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information), and InFORM (Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules). It is intended to provide federal wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries on a national scale. The agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIdentifier=null,JurisdictionalUnitAgency=null, JurisdictionalUnitKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).These data are used to automatically populate fields on the WFDSS Incident Information page.This data layer implements the NWCG Jurisdictional Unit Polygon Geospatial Data Layer Standard.Relevant NWCG Definitions and StandardsUnit2. A generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Unit, Protecting; LandownerUnit IdentifierThis data standard specifies the standard format and rules for Unit Identifier, a code used within the wildland fire community to uniquely identify a particular government organizational unit.Landowner Kind & CategoryThis data standard provides a two-tier classification (kind and category) of landownership. Attribute Fields JurisdictionalAgencyKind Describes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, and Other. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalAgencyCategoryDescribes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Standard Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available from the Unit ID standard, linked above.LandownerKindThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. There are three valid values: Federal, Private, or Other.LandownerCategoryThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State, Private.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. Be as specific as possible, identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated.SecondaryDataSourceIf the Data Source is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if Data Source is "PAD-US 2.1", then for a USDA Forest Service polygon, the Secondary Data Source would be "USDA FS Automated Lands Program (ALP)". For a BLM polygon in the same dataset, Secondary Source would be "Surface Management Agency (SMA)."SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.MapMethod:Controlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. Map method may help define data quality. MapMethod will be Mixed Method by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; OtherDateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using 24 hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature. GeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. This field may be renamed for each standard to fit the feature.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LocalNameLocalName for the polygon provided from PADUS or other source.LegendJurisdictionalAgencyJurisdictional Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.LegendLandownerAgencyLandowner Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.Data InputThis dataset is based on an aggregation of 4 spatial data sources: Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 2.1), data from Bureau of Indian Affairs regional offices, the BLM Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska, and Census Block-Group Geometry. NWCG Unit ID and Agency Kind/Category data are tabular and sourced from UnitIDActive.txt, in the WFMI Unit ID application (https://wfmi.nifc.gov/unit_id/Publish.html). Areas of with unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Agency Kind/Category are assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private" by use of the non-water polygons from the Census Block-Group geometry.PAD-US 2.1:This dataset is based in large part on the USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States - PAD-US 2.`. PAD-US is a compilation of authoritative protected areas data between agencies and organizations that ultimately results in a comprehensive and accurate inventory of protected areas for the United States to meet a variety of needs (e.g. conservation, recreation, public health, transportation, energy siting, ecological, or watershed assessments and planning). Extensive documentation on PAD-US processes and data sources is available.How these data were aggregated:Boundaries, and their descriptors, available in spatial databases (i.e. shapefiles or geodatabase feature classes) from land management agencies are the desired and primary data sources in PAD-US. If these authoritative sources are unavailable, or the agency recommends another source, data may be incorporated by other aggregators such as non-governmental organizations. Data sources are tracked for each record in the PAD-US geodatabase (see below).BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data are not available in PAD-US. As such, data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were substantially updated in 2022. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The

The U.S. Census Bureau.s economic indicator surveys provide monthly and quarterly data that are timely, reliable, and offer comprehensive measures of the U.S. economy. These surveys produce a variety of statistics covering construction, housing, international trade, retail trade, wholesale trade, services and manufacturing. The survey data provide measures of economic activity that allow analysis of economic performance and inform business investment and policy decisions. Other data included, which are not considered principal economic indicators, are the Quarterly Summary of State & Local Taxes, Quarterly Survey of Public Pensions, and the Manufactured Homes Survey. For information on the reliability and use of the data, including important notes on estimation and sampling variance, seasonal adjustment, measures of sampling variability, and other information pertinent to the economic indicators, visit the individual programs' webpages - http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/briefroom/BriefRm.

USA Sovereign Bond Reference data Reference data on more than 2500 Sovereign USA bonds. Historical data from 2000 onwards. Pay only for the parameters you need. Flexible in customizing our product to the customer's needs. Free test access as long as you need for integration. Reliable sources: issues' documents, disclosure website, global depositories data and other open sources. The cost depends on the amount of required parameters and re-distribution right.

Abstract

Syngenta is committed to increasing crop productivity and to using limited resources such as land, water and inputs more efficiently. Since 2014, Syngenta has been measuring trends in agricultural input efficiency on a global network of real farms. The Good Growth Plan dataset shows aggregated productivity and resource efficiency indicators by harvest year. The data has been collected from more than 4,000 farms and covers more than 20 different crops in 46 countries. The data (except USA data and for Barley in UK, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, France and Spain) was collected, consolidated and reported by Kynetec (previously Market Probe), an independent market research agency. It can be used as benchmarks for crop yield and input efficiency.

Geographic coverage

National Coverage

Analysis unit

Agricultural holdings

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A. Sample design Farms are grouped in clusters, which represent a crop grown in an area with homogenous agro- ecological conditions and include comparable types of farms. The sample includes reference and benchmark farms. The reference farms were selected by Syngenta and the benchmark farms were randomly selected by Kynetec within the same cluster.

B. Sample size Sample sizes for each cluster are determined with the aim to measure statistically significant increases in crop efficiency over time. This is done by Kynetec based on target productivity increases and assumptions regarding the variability of farm metrics in each cluster. The smaller the expected increase, the larger the sample size needed to measure significant differences over time. Variability within clusters is assumed based on public research and expert opinion. In addition, growers are also grouped in clusters as a means of keeping variances under control, as well as distinguishing between growers in terms of crop size, region and technological level. A minimum sample size of 20 interviews per cluster is needed. The minimum number of reference farms is 5 of 20. The optimal number of reference farms is 10 of 20 (balanced sample).

C. Selection procedure The respondents were picked randomly using a “quota based random sampling” procedure. Growers were first randomly selected and then checked if they complied with the quotas for crops, region, farm size etc. To avoid clustering high number of interviews at one sampling point, interviewers were instructed to do a maximum of 5 interviews in one village.

BF Screened from Indonesia were selected based on the following criterion:

(a) Corn growers in East Java - Location: East Java (Kediri and Probolinggo) and Aceh
- Innovative (early adopter); Progressive (keen to learn about agronomy and pests; willing to try new technology); Loyal (loyal to technology that can help them)
- making of technical drain (having irrigation system)
- marketing network for corn: post-harvest access to market (generally they sell 80% of their harvest)
- mid-tier (sub-optimal CP/SE use)
- influenced by fellow farmers and retailers
- may need longer credit

(b) Rice growers in West and East Java - Location: West Java (Tasikmalaya), East Java (Kediri), Central Java (Blora, Cilacap, Kebumen), South Lampung
- The growers are progressive (keen to learn about agronomy and pests; willing to try new technology)
- Accustomed in using farming equipment and pesticide. (keen to learn about agronomy and pests; willing to try new technology) - A long rice cultivating experience in his area (lots of experience in cultivating rice)
- willing to move forward in order to increase his productivity (same as progressive)
- have a soil that broad enough for the upcoming project
- have influence in his group (ability to influence others) - mid-tier (sub-optimal CP/SE use)
- may need longer credit

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Data collection tool for 2019 covered the following information:

(A) PRE- HARVEST INFORMATION

PART I: Screening PART II: Contact Information PART III: Farm Characteristics a. Biodiversity conservation b. Soil conservation c. Soil erosion d. Description of growing area e. Training on crop cultivation and safety measures PART IV: Farming Practices - Before Harvest a. Planting and fruit development - Field crops b. Planting and fruit development - Tree crops c. Planting and fruit development - Sugarcane d. Planting and fruit development - Cauliflower e. Seed treatment

(B) HARVEST INFORMATION

PART V: Farming Practices - After Harvest a. Fertilizer usage b. Crop protection products c. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Field crops d. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Tree crops e. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Sugarcane f. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Banana g. After harvest PART VI - Other inputs - After Harvest a. Input costs b. Abiotic stress c. Irrigation

See all questionnaires in external materials tab

Cleaning operations

Data processing:

Kynetec uses SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for data entry, cleaning, analysis, and reporting. After collection, the farm data is entered into a local database, reviewed, and quality-checked by the local Kynetec agency. In the case of missing values or inconsistencies, farmers are re-contacted. In some cases, grower data is verified with local experts (e.g. retailers) to ensure data accuracy and validity. After country-level cleaning, the farm-level data is submitted to the global Kynetec headquarters for processing. In the case of missing values or inconsistences, the local Kynetec office was re-contacted to clarify and solve issues.

B. Quality assurance Various consistency checks and internal controls are implemented throughout the entire data collection and reporting process in order to ensure unbiased, high quality data.

• Screening: Each grower is screened and selected by Kynetec based on cluster-specific criteria to ensure a comparable group of growers within each cluster. This helps keeping variability low.

• Evaluation of the questionnaire: The questionnaire aligns with the global objective of the project and is adapted to the local context (e.g. interviewers and growers should understand what is asked). Each year the questionnaire is evaluated based on several criteria, and updated where needed.

• Briefing of interviewers: Each year, local interviewers - familiar with the local context of farming -are thoroughly briefed to fully comprehend the questionnaire to obtain unbiased, accurate answers from respondents.

• Cross-validation of the answers:

o Kynetec captures all growers' responses through a digital data-entry tool. Various logical and consistency checks are automated in this tool (e.g. total crop size in hectares cannot be larger than farm size) 
o Kynetec cross validates the answers of the growers in three different ways: 
  1. Within the grower (check if growers respond consistently during the interview) 
  2. Across years (check if growers respond consistently throughout the years) 
  3. Within cluster (compare a grower's responses with those of others in the group) 

o All the above mentioned inconsistencies are followed up by contacting the growers and asking them to verify their answers. The data is updated after verification. All updates are tracked.

• Check and discuss evolutions and patterns: Global evolutions are calculated, discussed and reviewed on a monthly basis jointly by Kynetec and Syngenta.

• Sensitivity analysis: sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the global results in terms of outliers, retention rates and overall statistical robustness. The results of the sensitivity analysis are discussed jointly by Kynetec and Syngenta.

• It is recommended that users interested in using the administrative level 1 variable in the location dataset use this variable with care and crosscheck it with the postal code variable.

Data appraisal

Due to the above mentioned checks, irregularities in fertilizer usage data were discovered which had to be corrected:

For data collection wave 2014, respondents were asked to give a total estimate of the fertilizer NPK-rates that were applied in the fields. From 2015 onwards, the questionnaire was redesigned to be more precise and obtain data by individual fertilizer products. The new method of measuring fertilizer inputs leads to more accurate results, but also makes a year-on-year comparison difficult. After evaluating several solutions to this problems, 2014 fertilizer usage (NPK input) was re-estimated by calculating a weighted average of fertilizer usage in the following years.

USA Corporate bond Reference data Reference data on more than 150K Corporate USA bonds. Historical data from 2000 onwards. Pay only for the parameters you need. Flexible in customizing our product to the customer's needs. Free test access as long as you need for integration. Reliable sources: issues' documents, disclosure website, global depositories data and other open sources. The cost depends on the amount of required parameters and re-distribution right.

Vatican Data Series {title at top of page}Data Developers: Burhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Emege, Thomas, Gerlt, R.. . “Vatican Data Series {title at top of page}”. Scale not given. Version 1.0. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Catholic Hierarchy, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.Web map developer: Molly Burhans, October 2019Web app developer: Molly Burhans, October 2019GoodLands’ polygon data layers, version 2.0 for global ecclesiastical boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church:Although care has been taken to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information provided, due to this being the first developed dataset of global ecclesiastical boundaries curated from many sources it may have a higher margin of error than established geopolitical administrative boundary maps. Boundaries need to be verified with appropriate Ecclesiastical Leadership. The current information is subject to change without notice. No parties involved with the creation of this data are liable for indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from, arising out of or in connection with the use of the information. We referenced 1960 sources to build our global datasets of ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Often, they were isolated images of dioceses, historical documents and information about parishes that were cross checked. These sources can be viewed here:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11ANlH1S_aYJOyz4TtG0HHgz0OLxnOvXLHMt4FVOS85Q/edit#gid=0To learn more or contact us please visit: https://good-lands.org/The Catholic Leadership global maps information is derived from the Annuario Pontificio, which is curated and published by the Vatican Statistics Office annually, and digitized by David Cheney at Catholic-Hierarchy.org -- updated are supplemented with diocesan and news announcements. GoodLands maps this into global ecclesiastical boundaries. Admin 3 Ecclesiastical Territories:Burhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Gerlt, R.. . “Admin 3 Ecclesiastical Territories For Web”. Scale not given. Version 1.2. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.Derived from:Global Diocesan Boundaries:Burhans, M., Bell, J., Burhans, D., Carmichael, R., Cheney, D., Deaton, M., Emge, T. Gerlt, B., Grayson, J., Herries, J., Keegan, H., Skinner, A., Smith, M., Sousa, C., Trubetskoy, S. “Diocesean Boundaries of the Catholic Church” [Feature Layer]. Scale not given. Version 1.2. Redlands, CA, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Using: ArcGIS. 10.4. Version 10.0. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Boundary ProvenanceStatistics and Leadership DataCheney, D.M. “Catholic Hierarchy of the World” [Database]. Date Updated: August 2019. Catholic Hierarchy. Using: Paradox. Retrieved from Original Source.Catholic HierarchyAnnuario Pontificio per l’Anno .. Città del Vaticano :Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, Multiple Years.The data for these maps was extracted from the gold standard of Church data, the Annuario Pontificio, published yearly by the Vatican. The collection and data development of the Vatican Statistics Office are unknown. GoodLands is not responsible for errors within this data. We encourage people to document and report errant information to us at data@good-lands.org or directly to the Vatican.Additional information about regular changes in bishops and sees comes from a variety of public diocesan and news announcements.

Explore detailed Spacer Spool import data of The Reliable Specialty Company in the USA—product details, price, quantity, origin countries, and US ports.

Catholics per Parish {title at top of page}Data Developers: Burhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Emege, Thomas, Gerlt, R.. . “Catholics per Parish {title at top of page}”. Scale not given. Version 1.0. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Catholic Hierarchy, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.Web map developer: Molly Burhans, October 2019Web app developer: Molly Burhans, October 2019GoodLands’ polygon data layers, version 2.0 for global ecclesiastical boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church:Although care has been taken to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information provided, due to this being the first developed dataset of global ecclesiastical boundaries curated from many sources it may have a higher margin of error than established geopolitical administrative boundary maps. Boundaries need to be verified with appropriate Ecclesiastical Leadership. The current information is subject to change without notice. No parties involved with the creation of this data are liable for indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from, arising out of or in connection with the use of the information. We referenced 1960 sources to build our global datasets of ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Often, they were isolated images of dioceses, historical documents and information about parishes that were cross checked. These sources can be viewed here:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11ANlH1S_aYJOyz4TtG0HHgz0OLxnOvXLHMt4FVOS85Q/edit#gid=0To learn more or contact us please visit: https://good-lands.org/The Catholic Leadership global maps information is derived from the Annuario Pontificio, which is curated and published by the Vatican Statistics Office annually, and digitized by David Cheney at Catholic-Hierarchy.org -- updated are supplemented with diocesan and news announcements. GoodLands maps this into global ecclesiastical boundaries. Admin 3 Ecclesiastical Territories:Burhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Gerlt, R.. . “Admin 3 Ecclesiastical Territories For Web”. Scale not given. Version 1.2. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.Derived from:Global Diocesan Boundaries:Burhans, M., Bell, J., Burhans, D., Carmichael, R., Cheney, D., Deaton, M., Emge, T. Gerlt, B., Grayson, J., Herries, J., Keegan, H., Skinner, A., Smith, M., Sousa, C., Trubetskoy, S. “Diocesean Boundaries of the Catholic Church” [Feature Layer]. Scale not given. Version 1.2. Redlands, CA, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Using: ArcGIS. 10.4. Version 10.0. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Boundary ProvenanceStatistics and Leadership DataCheney, D.M. “Catholic Hierarchy of the World” [Database]. Date Updated: August 2019. Catholic Hierarchy. Using: Paradox. Retrieved from Original Source.Catholic HierarchyAnnuario Pontificio per l’Anno .. Città del Vaticano :Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, Multiple Years.The data for these maps was extracted from the gold standard of Church data, the Annuario Pontificio, published yearly by the Vatican. The collection and data development of the Vatican Statistics Office are unknown. GoodLands is not responsible for errors within this data. We encourage people to document and report errant information to us at data@good-lands.org or directly to the Vatican.Additional information about regular changes in bishops and sees comes from a variety of public diocesan and news announcements.

Explore detailed Potsticker import data of Common Good Trade Usa Inc in the USA—product details, price, quantity, origin countries, and US ports.

The majority of U.S. adults believe that non-government scientists and educators are the most trustworthy sources for information about climate change, with **** percent of respondents in 2022. By comparison, nearly ** percent of respondents said they considered environmental groups trustworthy, and some ** percent said they considered college professors/educators trustworthy.

Explore detailed Boots import data of Reliable Knitting Works Inc in the USA—product details, price, quantity, origin countries, and US ports.