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.

Relative concentration of the Southern California region's Black/African American population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 13,312 block groups in the Southern California RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Southern 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 HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

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.

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

In 2023, Washington, D.C. had the highest population density in the United States, with 11,130.69 people per square mile. As a whole, there were about 94.83 residents per square mile in the U.S., and Alaska was the state with the lowest population density, with 1.29 residents per square mile. The problem of population density Simply put, population density is the population of a country divided by the area of the country. While this can be an interesting measure of how many people live in a country and how large the country is, it does not account for the degree of urbanization, or the share of people who live in urban centers. For example, Russia is the largest country in the world and has a comparatively low population, so its population density is very low. However, much of the country is uninhabited, so cities in Russia are much more densely populated than the rest of the country. Urbanization in the United States While the United States is not very densely populated compared to other countries, its population density has increased significantly over the past few decades. The degree of urbanization has also increased, and well over half of the population lives in urban centers.

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 473 cities in the California by South African population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each city 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
• 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

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

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.

This dataset represents an archived record of annual California sea otter surveys from 1985-2014. Survey procedures involve counting animals during the "spring survey" -- generally beginning in late April or early May and usually ending in late May early June but may extend into early July, depending on weather conditions. Annual surveys are organized by survey year and within each year, three shapefiles are included: census summary of southern sea otter, extra limit counts of southern sea otter, and range extent of southern sea otter. The surveys, conducted cooperatively by scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Monterey Bay Aquarium with the help of experienced volunteers, cover about 375 miles of California coast, from Half Moon Bay south to Santa Barbara. The information gathered may be used by federal and state wildlife agencies in making decisions about the management of this threatened marine mammal. These data, in conjunction with findings from several more in-depth studies, may also provide the necessary information to assess female reproductive rates and changes in reproductive success of the California sea otter population through time. For more information on annual California sea otter surveys, including most current surveys and associated data and corresponding USGS Data Series reports, go to: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5601b6dae4b03bc34f5445ec The GIS shapefile "Census summary of southern sea otter" provides a standardized tool for examining spatial patterns in abundance and demographic trends of the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), based on data collected during the spring range-wide census. This census has been undertaken each year using consistent methodology involving both ground-based and aerial-based counts. This range-wide census provides the primary basis for gauging population trends by State and Federal management agencies. This shapefile includes a series of summary statistics derived from the raw census data, including sea otter density (otters per square km of habitat), linear density (otters per km of coastline), relative pup abundance (ratio of pups to independent animals) and 5-year population trend (calculated as exponential rate of change). All statistics are calculated and plotted for small sections of habitat in order to illustrate local variation in these statistics across the entire mainland distribution of sea otters in California. Sea otter habitat is considered to extend offshore from the mean low tide line and out to the 60m isobath: this depth range includes over 99% of sea otter feeding dives, based on dive-depth data from radio tagged sea otters (Tinker et al. 2006, 2007). Sea otter distribution in California (the mainland range) is considered to comprise this band of potential habitat stretching along the coast of California, and bounded to the north and south by range limits defined as "the points farthest from the range center at which 5 or more otters are counted within a 10km contiguous stretch of coastline (as measured along the 10m bathymetric contour) during the two most recent spring censuses, or at which these same criteria were met in the previous year". The polygon corresponding to the range definition was then sub-divided into onshore/offshore strips roughly 500 meters in width. The boundaries between these strips correspond to ATOS (As-The-Otter-Swims) points, which are arbitrary locations established approximately every 500 meters along a smoothed 5 fathom bathymetric contour (line) offshore of the State of California. The GIS shapefile "Extra limit counts of southern sea otters" is a point layer representing the locations of sea otter sightings that fall outside the officially recognized range of the southern sea otter in mainland California. These data were collected during the spring range-wide census. Sea otter distribution in California (the mainland range) is considered to comprise a band of potential habitat stretching along the coast of California, and bounded to the north and south by range limits as defined above. However, a few individual sea otters (almost always males) can frequently be found outside this officially recognized range, and these "extra-limital" animals are also counted during the census. The GIS shapefile "Range extent of southern sea otters" is a simple polyline representing the geographic distribution of the southern sea otter in mainland California, based on data collected during the spring range-wide census. The spring 2011 survey was incomplete due to weather conditions and there were no “extra-limital” sightings of otters during the spring 1992 survey, hence no data or shapefile for “Extra limit counts 1992.” For ease of access, an additional CSV file of the census summary from 1985-2014 is provided: "AnnualCaliforniaSeaOtter_Census_summary_1985_2014.csv" References: Tinker, M. T., Doak, D. F., Estes, J. A., Hatfield, B. B., Staedler, M. M. and Bodkin, J. L. (2006), INCORPORATING DIVERSE DATA AND REALISTIC COMPLEXITY INTO DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATION PROCEDURES FOR SEA OTTERS. Ecological Applications, 16: 2293–2312, https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2293:IDDARC]2.0.CO;2 Tinker, M. T. , D. P. Costa , J. A. Estes , and N. Wieringa . 2007. Individual dietary specialization and dive behaviour in the California sea otter: using archival time–depth data to detect alternative foraging strategies. Deep Sea Research II 54: 330–342, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.11.012

The GIS layer "Census_sum_15" provides a standardized tool for examining spatial patterns in abundance and demographic trends of the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), based on data collected during the spring 2015 range-wide census. The USGS range-wide sea otter census has been undertaken twice a year since 1982, once in May and once in October, using consistent methodology involving both ground-based and aerial-based counts. The spring census is considered more accurate than the fall count, and provides the primary basis for gauging population trends by State and Federal management agencies. This Shape file includes a series of summary statistics derived from the raw census data, including sea otter density (otters per square km of habitat), linear density (otters per km of coastline), relative pup abundance (ratio of pups to independent animals) and 5-year population trend (calculated as exponential rate of change). All statistics are calculated and plotted for small sections of habitat in order to illustrate local variation in these statistics across the entire mainland distribution of sea otters in California (as of 2015). Sea otter habitat is considered to extend offshore from the mean low tide line and out to the 60m isobath: this depth range includes over 99% of sea otter feeding dives, based on dive-depth data from radio tagged sea otters (Tinker et al 2006, 2007). Sea otter distribution in California (the mainland range) is considered to comprise this band of potential habitat stretching along the coast of California, and bounded to the north and south by range limits defined as "the points farthest from the range center at which 5 or more otters are counted within a 10km contiguous stretch of coastline (as measured along the 10m bathymetric contour) during the two most recent spring censuses, or at which these same criteria were met in the previous year". The polygon corresponding to the range definition was then sub-divided into onshore/offshore strips roughly 500 meters in width. The boundaries between these strips correspond to ATOS (As-The-Otter-Swims) points, which are arbitrary locations established approximately every 500 meters along a smoothed 5 fathom bathymetric contour (line) offshore of the State of California.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 55 counties in the California by South African population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each county 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
• 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

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

In 2023, California had the highest Hispanic population in the United States, with over 15.76 million people claiming Hispanic heritage. Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois rounded out the top five states for Hispanic residents in that year. History of Hispanic people Hispanic people are those whose heritage stems from a former Spanish colony. The Spanish Empire colonized most of Central and Latin America in the 15th century, which began when Christopher Columbus arrived in the Americas in 1492. The Spanish Empire expanded its territory throughout Central America and South America, but the colonization of the United States did not include the Northeastern part of the United States. Despite the number of Hispanic people living in the United States having increased, the median income of Hispanic households has fluctuated slightly since 1990. Hispanic population in the United States Hispanic people are the second-largest ethnic group in the United States, making Spanish the second most common language spoken in the country. In 2021, about one-fifth of Hispanic households in the United States made between 50,000 to 74,999 U.S. dollars. The unemployment rate of Hispanic Americans has fluctuated significantly since 1990, but has been on the decline since 2010, with the exception of 2020 and 2021, due to the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

The GIS shapefile "Census summary of southern sea otter 2017" provides a standardized tool for examining spatial patterns in abundance and demographic trends of the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), based on data collected during the spring 2017 range-wide census. The USGS range-wide sea otter census has been undertaken twice a year since 1982, once in May and once in October, using consistent methodology involving both ground-based and aerial-based counts. The spring census is considered more accurate than the fall count, and provides the primary basis for gauging population trends by State and Federal management agencies. This Shape file includes a series of summary statistics derived from the raw census data, including sea otter density (otters per square km of habitat), linear density (otters per km of coastline), relative pup abundance (ratio of pups to independent animals) and 5-year population trend (calculated as exponential rate of change). All statistics are calculated and plotted for small sections of habitat in order to illustrate local variation in these statistics across the entire mainland distribution of sea otters in California (as of 2017). Sea otter habitat is considered to extend offshore from the mean low tide line and out to the 60m isobath: this depth range includes over 99% of sea otter feeding dives, based on dive-depth data from radio tagged sea otters (Tinker et al 2006, 2007). Sea otter distribution in California (the mainland range) is considered to comprise this band of potential habitat stretching along the coast of California, and bounded to the north and south by range limits defined as "the points farthest from the range center at which 5 or more otters are counted within a 10km contiguous stretch of coastline (as measured along the 10m bathymetric contour) during the two most recent spring censuses, or at which these same criteria were met in the previous year". The polygon corresponding to the range definition was then sub-divided into onshore/offshore strips roughly 500 meters in width. The boundaries between these strips correspond to ATOS (As-The-Otter-Swims) points, which are arbitrary locations established approximately every 500 meters along a smoothed 5 fathom bathymetric contour (line) offshore of the State of California. References: Tinker, M. T., Doak, D. F., Estes, J. A., Hatfield, B. B., Staedler, M. M. and Bodkin, J. L. (2006), INCORPORATING DIVERSE DATA AND REALISTIC COMPLEXITY INTO DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATION PROCEDURES FOR SEA OTTERS. Ecological Applications, 16: 2293–2312, https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2293:IDDARC]2.0.CO;2 Tinker, M. T. , D. P. Costa , J. A. Estes , and N. Wieringa . 2007. Individual dietary specialization and dive behaviour in the California sea otter: using archival time–depth data to detect alternative foraging strategies. Deep Sea Research II 54: 330–342, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.11.012

The GIS shapefile Extra limit counts of southern sea otters 2019 is a point layer representing the locations of sea otter sightings that fall outside the officially recognized range of the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) in mainland California. These data were collected during the spring 2019 range-wide census. The USGS range-wide sea otter census has been undertaken each year since 1982, using consistent methodology involving both ground-based and aerial-based counts. The spring census provides the primary basis for gauging population trends by State and Federal management agencies. Sea otter distribution in California (the mainland range) is considered to comprise a band of potential habitat stretching along the coast of California, and bounded to the north and south by range limits defined by combining independent otters within a moving window of 10-kilometer stretches of coastline (as measured along the 10-meter bathymetric contour; 20 contiguous ATOS intervals each) and taking the northern and southern ATOS values, respectively, of the northernmost and southernmost stretches in which at least five otters were counted for at least 2 consecutive spring surveys during the last 3 years. However, a few individual sea otters (almost always males) can frequently be found outside this officially recognized range, and these extra-limital animals are also counted during the census.

WRD was formed by a vote of the people in 1959 for the purpose of protecting the groundwater resources of the Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins. It is the largest groundwater agency by population in the state of California, managing and protecting local groundwater resources for four million residents. WRD's service area covers a 420-square-mile region of southern Los Angeles County, the most populated county in the United States. WRD owns three water treatment facilities: two advanced water treatment facilities and a groundwater desalter. Boundary of the Water Replenishment District is based on the legal description: Polygon boundary of the Water Replenishment District (WRD) based on the July 6, 1959 legal description presented at the State of California Department of Water Resources hearing for the information of the Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District, also known as Water Replenishment District of Southern California cut at the shoreline. It was re-surveyed in 2019 to improve accuracy.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 34 cities in the Orange County, CA by South African population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each city 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
• 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by South African Population: This column displays the rank of city in the Orange County, CA by their South African population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• City: The City for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• South African Population: The South African population of the city is shown in this column.
• % of Total City Population: This shows what percentage of the total city population identifies as South African. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Orange County South African Population: This tells us how much of the entire Orange County, CA South African population lives in that city. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: This 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 influence of density-dependent and number-dependent processes on individual demographic rates often results in ecological tradeoffs. Because such processes have important implications for individual level fitness and population regulation, they long have been an important topic in ecological research. I used Dascyllus trimaculatus , a site-attached planktivorous coral reef fish, to determine independently the effects of population density and group size on rates of individual growth and mortality. Somatic growth of D. trimaculatus was positively related to the density of D. trimaculatus outplanted to host anenomes, Heteractis magnifica , with nearly twice as much growth observed in individuals living in the highest density treatment. By contrast, survivorship of D. trimaculatus on H. magnifica exhibited a negative relationship with density. There was no significant effect of group size on either the growth or mortality rates of D. trimaculatus . These relationships suggest a tradeoff between density-dependent growth and survival in this species. My analysis of behavioral data indicated that D. trimaculatus living under conditions of higher local population densities displayed decreased rates of intraspecific aggression because of positive feedback between local population density and the foraging distance from an individual’s host anemone. In turn, lower rates of aggression and feeding higher in the water column resulted in increased somatic growth rates due to: (1) a reduced energy expenditure and (2) an increase in prey consumption. These data are part of a Master's Thesis published by ProQuest: Nielsen, Jessica Anne. Effects of density on behaviorally-mediated tradeoffs between growth and survivorship. MA Thesis, University of California Santa Barbara, 2013. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCE 16-37396 (and earlier awards) as well as a generous gift from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Research was completed under permits issued by the French Polynesian Government (Délégation à la Recherche) and the Haut-commissariat de la République en Polynésie Francaise (DTRT) (Protocole d'Accueil 2005-2018). This work represents a contribution of the Moorea Coral Reef (MCR) LTER Site.

The GIS shapefile Census_sum_2019 provides a standardized tool for examining spatial patterns in abundance and demographic trends of the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), based on data collected during the spring 2019 range-wide census. The USGS spring range-wide sea otter census has been undertaken each year since 1982, using consistent methodology involving both ground-based and aerial-based counts. The spring census provides the primary basis for gauging population trends by State and Federal management agencies. This shapefile includes a series of summary statistics derived from the raw census data, including sea otter density (otters per square kilometer of habitat), linear density (otters per kilometer of coastline), relative pup abundance (ratio of pups to independent animals) and 5-year population trend (calculated as exponential rate of change). All statistics are calculated and plotted for small sections of habitat in order to illustrate local variation in these statistics across the entire mainland distribution of sea otters in California (as of 2019). Sea otter habitat is considered to extend offshore from the mean low tide line and out to the 60 meter isobath: this depth range includes over 99 percent of sea otter feeding dives, based on dive-depth data from radio tagged sea otters (Tinker et al 2006, 2007). Sea otter distribution in California (the mainland range) is considered to comprise this band of potential habitat stretching along the coast of California, and bounded to the north and south by range limits defined by combining independent otters within a moving window of 10-kilometer stretches of coastline (as measured along the 10-meter bathymetric contour; 20 contiguous ATOS intervals each) and taking the northern and southern ATOS values, respectively, of the northernmost and southernmost stretches in which at least five otters were counted for at least 2 consecutive spring surveys during the last 3 years. The polygon corresponding to the range definition was then sub-divided into onshore/offshore strips roughly 500 meters in width. The boundaries between these strips correspond to ATOS (As-The-Otter-Swims) points, which are arbitrary locations established approximately every 500 meters along a smoothed 5 fathom bathymetric contour (line) offshore of the State of California. References: Tinker, M. T., Doak, D. F., Estes, J. A., Hatfield, B. B., Staedler, M. M. and Bodkin, J. L. (2006), INCORPORATING DIVERSE DATA AND REALISTIC COMPLEXITY INTO DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATION PROCEDURES FOR SEA OTTERS. Ecological Applications, 16: 2293–2312, https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2293:IDDARC]2.0.CO;2 Tinker, M. T. , D. P. Costa , J. A. Estes , and N. Wieringa . 2007. Individual dietary specialization and dive behaviour in the California sea otter: using archival time–depth data to detect alternative foraging strategies. Deep Sea Research II 54: 330–342, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.11.012

The GIS shapefile "Census summary of southern sea otter 2016" provides a standardized tool for examining spatial patterns in abundance and demographic trends of the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), based on data collected during the spring 2016 range-wide census. The USGS range-wide sea otter census has been undertaken twice a year since 1982, once in May and once in October, using consistent methodology involving both ground-based and aerial-based counts. The spring census is considered more accurate than the fall count, and provides the primary basis for gauging population trends by State and Federal management agencies. This Shape file includes a series of summary statistics derived from the raw census data, including sea otter density (otters per square km of habitat), linear density (otters per km of coastline), relative pup abundance (ratio of pups to independent animals) and 5-year population trend (calculated as exponential rate of change). All statistics are calculated and plotted for small sections of habitat in order to illustrate local variation in these statistics across the entire mainland distribution of sea otters in California (as of 2016). Sea otter habitat is considered to extend offshore from the mean low tide line and out to the 60m isobath: this depth range includes over 99% of sea otter feeding dives, based on dive-depth data from radio tagged sea otters (Tinker et al 2006, 2007). Sea otter distribution in California (the mainland range) is considered to comprise this band of potential habitat stretching along the coast of California, and bounded to the north and south by range limits defined as "the points farthest from the range center at which 5 or more otters are counted within a 10km contiguous stretch of coastline (as measured along the 10m bathymetric contour) during the two most recent spring censuses, or at which these same criteria were met in the previous year". The polygon corresponding to the range definition was then sub-divided into onshore/offshore strips roughly 500 meters in width. The boundaries between these strips correspond to ATOS (As-The-Otter-Swims) points, which are arbitrary locations established approximately every 500 meters along a smoothed 5 fathom bathymetric contour (line) offshore of the State of California.

In this time period, the Hispanic population of North Dakota increased by 414 percent, while the Hispanic population of South Dakota increased by 360 percent, the two highest growths in the United States. In 2023, California, Texas, and Florida registered the largest Hispanic or Latino population in the U.S.