As of 2024, Chugach State Park in Anchorage, Alaska, was the largest city park in the United States by a long shot, spanning 464,318 acres. Second in the ranking was the Great Dismal Swamp in the Coastal Plain Region of southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina, at 113,000 acres. A wide variety of park authorities Most parks in the U.S. are owned by the municipality, state, county, regional agency, or the federal government. Both McDowell Sonoran Preserve and South Mountain Preserve are part of the state park system along with most of the parks in the ranking. One of the more well-known park authorities is the National Park Service (NPS) – an agency of the federal government. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area was the most visited NPS park in 2024 alongside many other well-known U.S. parks. What defines a park? Parks in the U.S. are often called a variety of names, just a few of which are: forest, reserve, preserve and wildlife management area. Sometimes the differences between parks in the U.S. can vary massively from monuments to expansive woodland. In 2024, Central Park in New York, topped the ranking of the most visited city parks in the U.S.

The city park with the highest annual visitation in 2023 was Central Park in New York, accounting for a total of ********** visitors. The second most visited city park in that year was Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, with nearly half the visitation of Central Park, at **********.

This graph depicts the size of county-owned city parks in the U.S. in 2010. The Bear Creek Pioneers Park in Houston has an area of 2,168 acres.

Reason for Selection Protected natural areas in urban environments provide urban residents a nearby place to connect with nature and offer refugia for some species. They help foster a conservation ethic by providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and also support ecosystem services like offsetting heat island effects (Greene and Millward 2017, Simpson 1998), water filtration, stormwater retention, and more (Hoover and Hopton 2019). In addition, parks, greenspace, and greenways can help improve physical and psychological health in communities (Gies 2006). Urban park size complements the equitable access to potential parks indicator by capturing the value of existing parks.Input DataSoutheast Blueprint 2024 extentFWS National Realty Tracts, accessed 12-13-2023Protected Areas Database of the United States(PAD-US):PAD-US 3.0 national geodatabase -Combined Proclamation Marine Fee Designation Easement, accessed 12-6-20232020 Census Urban Areas from the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification; download the data, read more about how urban areas were redefined following the 2020 censusOpenStreetMap data “multipolygons” layer, accessed 12-5-2023A polygon from this dataset is considered a beach if the value in the “natural” tag attribute is “beach”. Data for coastal states (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX) were downloaded in .pbf format and translated to an ESRI shapefile using R code. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under theOpen Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by theOpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Additional credit to OSM contributors. Read more onthe OSM copyright page.2021 National Land Cover Database (NLCD): Percentdevelopedimperviousness2023NOAA coastal relief model: volumes 2 (Southeast Atlantic), 3 (Florida and East Gulf of America), 4 (Central Gulf of America), and 5 (Western Gulf of America), accessed 3-27-2024Mapping StepsCreate a seamless vector layer to constrain the extent of the urban park size indicator to inland and nearshore marine areas <10 m in depth. The deep offshore areas of marine parks do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture nearby opportunities for urban residents to connect with nature. Shallow areas are more accessible for recreational activities like snorkeling, which typically has a maximum recommended depth of 12-15 meters. This step mirrors the approach taken in the Caribbean version of this indicator.Merge all coastal relief model rasters (.nc format) together using QGIS “create virtual raster”.Save merged raster to .tif and import into ArcPro.Reclassify the NOAA coastal relief model data to assign areas with an elevation of land to -10 m a value of 1. Assign all other areas (deep marine) a value of 0.Convert the raster produced above to vector using the “RasterToPolygon” tool.Clip to 2024 subregions using “Pairwise Clip” tool.Break apart multipart polygons using “Multipart to single parts” tool.Hand-edit to remove deep marine polygon.Dissolve the resulting data layer.This produces a seamless polygon defining land and shallow marine areas.Clip the Census urban area layer to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Clip PAD-US 3.0 to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Remove the following areas from PAD-US 3.0, which are outside the scope of this indicator to represent parks:All School Trust Lands in Oklahoma and Mississippi (Loc Des = “School Lands” or “School Trust Lands”). These extensive lands are leased out and are not open to the public.All tribal and military lands (“Des_Tp” = "TRIBL" or “Des_Tp” = "MIL"). Generally, these lands are not intended for public recreational use.All BOEM marine lease blocks (“Own_Name” = "BOEM"). These Outer Continental Shelf lease blocks do not represent actively protected marine parks, but serve as the “legal definition for BOEM offshore boundary coordinates...for leasing and administrative purposes” (BOEM).All lands designated as “proclamation” (“Des_Tp” = "PROC"). These typically represent the approved boundary of public lands, within which land protection is authorized to occur, but not all lands within the proclamation boundary are necessarily currently in a conserved status.Retain only selected attribute fields from PAD-US to get rid of irrelevant attributes.Merged the filtered PAD-US layer produced above with the OSM beaches and FWS National Realty Tracts to produce a combined protected areas dataset.The resulting merged data layer contains overlapping polygons. To remove overlapping polygons, use the Dissolve function.Clip the resulting data layer to the inland and nearshore extent.Process all multipart polygons (e.g., separate parcels within a National Wildlife Refuge) to single parts (referred to in Arc software as an “explode”).Select all polygons that intersect the Census urban extent within 0.5 miles. We chose 0.5 miles to represent a reasonable walking distance based on input and feedback from park access experts. Assuming a moderate intensity walking pace of 3 miles per hour, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s physical activity guidelines, the 0.5 mi distance also corresponds to the 10-minute walk threshold used in the equitable access to potential parks indicator.Dissolve all the park polygons that were selected in the previous step.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (“explode”) again.Add a unique ID to the selected parks. This value will be used in a later step to join the parks to their buffers.Create a 0.5 mi (805 m) buffer ring around each park using the multiring plugin in QGIS. Ensure that “dissolve buffers” is disabled so that a single 0.5 mi buffer is created for each park.Assess the amount of overlap between the buffered park and the Census urban area using “overlap analysis”. This step is necessary to identify parks that do not intersect the urban area, but which lie within an urban matrix (e.g., Umstead Park in Raleigh, NC and Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve in Atlanta, GA). This step creates a table that is joined back to the park polygons using the UniqueID.Remove parks that had ≤10% overlap with the urban areas when buffered. This excludes mostly non-urban parks that do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture parks that provide nearby access for urban residents. Note: The 10% threshold is a judgement call based on testing which known urban parks and urban National Wildlife Refuges are captured at different overlap cutoffs and is intended to be as inclusive as possible.Calculate the GIS acres of each remaining park unit using the Add Geometry Attributes function.Buffer the selected parks by 15 m. Buffering prevents very small and narrow parks from being left out of the indicator when the polygons are converted to raster.Reclassify the parks based on their area into the 7 classes seen in the final indicator values below. These thresholds were informed by park classification guidelines from the National Recreation and Park Association, which classify neighborhood parks as 5-10 acres, community parks as 30-50 acres, and large urban parks as optimally 75+ acres (Mertes and Hall 1995).Assess the impervious surface composition of each park using the NLCD 2021 impervious layer and the Zonal Statistics “MEAN” function. Retain only the mean percent impervious value for each park.Extract only parks with a mean impervious pixel value <80%. This step excludes parks that do not meet the intent of the indicator to capture opportunities to connect with nature and offer refugia for species (e.g., the Superdome in New Orleans, LA, the Astrodome in Houston, TX, and City Plaza in Raleigh, NC).Extract again to the inland and nearshore extent.Export the final vector file to a shapefile and import to ArcGIS Pro.Convert the resulting polygons to raster using the ArcPy Feature to Raster function and the area class field.Assign a value of 0 to all other pixels in the Southeast Blueprint 2024 extent not already identified as an urban park in the mapping steps above. Zero values are intended to help users better understand the extent of this indicator and make it perform better in online tools.Use the land and shallow marine layer and “extract by mask” tool to save the final version of this indicator.Add color and legend to raster attribute table.As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in theSoutheast Blueprint Data Downloadunder > 6_Code. Final indicator valuesIndicator values are assigned as follows:6= 75+ acre urban park5= 50 to <75 acre urban park4= 30 to <50 acre urban park3= 10 to <30 acre urban park2=5 to <10acreurbanpark1 = <5 acre urban park0 = Not identified as an urban parkKnown IssuesThis indicator does not include park amenities that influence how well the park serves people and should not be the only tool used for parks and recreation planning. Park standards should be determined at a local level to account for various community issues, values, needs, and available resources.This indicator includes some protected areas that are not open to the public and not typically thought of as “parks”, like mitigation lands, private easements, and private golf courses. While we experimented with excluding them using the public access attribute in PAD, due to numerous inaccuracies, this inadvertently removed protected lands that are known to be publicly accessible. As a result, we erred on the side of including the non-publicly accessible lands.The NLCD percent impervious layer contains classification inaccuracies. As a result, this indicator may exclude parks that are mostly natural because they are misclassified as mostly impervious. Conversely, this indicator may include parks that are mostly impervious because they are misclassified as mostly

‘Total tweets’ enumerates all public tweets posted from a GPS latitude/longitude inside that city. ‘Park tweets’ is the total number of tweets posted from inside parks. The ‘% tweets in park’ column calculates Park tweets / total Tweets. ‘Park visitors’ is the number of unique users who tweeted inside one of that city’s municipal park locations as defined by Trust for Public Land’s ParkServe. ‘Parks visited’ is the number of unique facilities from which a tweet was posted within that city. ‘Tweets per capita’ is number of total messages for the entire period divided by the city’s population in 2012.

In 2024, the city in the United States with the highest share of parkland was Anchorage, Alaska, where approximately 84 percent of the city was parkland. In second place, with almost half the percentage of parkland was Fremont, California, where 43 percent of the city was parkland.

The Austin Parks and Recreation System's ranking on the Trust for Public Land ParkScore Index. This index ranks the park systems of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. based on park acreage, park size, park funding, park access, and a variety of other factors. The three factors that make up ParkScore all reflect quality: good park systems need adequate acreage, services and investment, and access. For this metric and visual, lower scores are better.

Reason for SelectionProtected natural areas in urban environments provide urban residents a nearby place to connect with nature and offer refugia for some species. Because beaches in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are open to the public, beaches also provide important outdoor recreation opportunities for urban residents, so we include beaches as parks in this indicator.Input DataSoutheast Blueprint 2023 subregions: CaribbeanSoutheast Blueprint 2023 extentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Coastal Relief Model, accessed 11-22-2022Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0: VI, PR, and Marine Combined Fee EasementPuerto Rico Protected Natural Areas 2018 (December 2018 update): Terrestrial and marine protected areas (PACAT2018_areas_protegidasPR_TERRESTRES_07052019.shp, PACAT2018_areas_protegidasPR_MARINAS_07052019.shp) 2020 Census Urban Areas from the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification; download the data, read more about how urban areas were redefined following the 2020 censusOpenStreetMap data “multipolygons” layer, accessed 3-14-2023A polygon from this dataset is considered a park if the “leisure” tag attribute is either “park” or “nature_reserve”, and considered a beach if the value in the “natural” tag attribute is “beach”. OpenStreetMap describes leisure areas as “places people go in their spare time” and natural areas as “a wide variety of physical geography, geological and landcover features”. Data were downloaded in .pbf format and translated ton an ESRI shapefile using R code. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Additional credit to OSM contributors. Read more on the OSM copyright page. TNC Lands - Public Layer, accessed 3-8-2023U.S. Virgin Islands beaches layer (separate vector layers for St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John) provided by Joe Dwyer with Lynker/the NOAA Caribbean Climate Adaptation Program on 3-3-2023 (contact jdwyer@lynker.com for more information)Mapping StepsMost mapping steps were completed using QGIS (v 3.22) Graphical Modeler.Fix geometry errors in the PAD-US PR data using Fix Geometry. This must be done before any analysis is possible.Merge the terrestrial PR and VI PAD-US layers.Use the NOAA coastal relief model to restrict marine parks (marine polygons from PAD-US and Puerto Rico Protected Natural Areas) to areas shallower than 10 m in depth. The deep offshore areas of marine parks do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture nearby opportunities for urban residents to connect with nature.Merge into one layer the resulting shallow marine parks from marine PAD-US and the Puerto Rico Protected Natural Areas along with the combined terrestrial PAD-US parks, OpenStreetMap, TNC Lands, and USVI beaches. Omit from the Puerto Rico Protected Areas layer the “Zona de Conservación del Carso”, which has some policy protections and conservation incentives but is not formally protected.Fix geometry errors in the resulting merged layer using Fix Geometry.Intersect the resulting fixed file with the Caribbean Blueprint subregion.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (referred to in Arc software as an “explode”). This helps the indicator capture, as much as possible, the discrete units of a protected area that serve urban residents.Clip the Census urban area to the Caribbean Blueprint subregion.Select all polygons that intersect the Census urban extent within 1.2 miles (1,931 m). The 1.2 mi threshold is consistent with the average walking trip on a summer day (U.S. DOT 2002) used to define the walking distance threshold used in the greenways and trails indicator. Note: this is further than the 0.5 mi distance used in the continental version of the indicator. We extended it to capture East Bay and Point Udall based on feedback from the local conservation community about the importance of the park for outdoor recreation.Dissolve all the park polygons that were selected in the previous step.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (“explode”) again.Add a unique ID to the selected parks. This value will be used to join the parks to their buffers.Create a 1.2 mi (1,931 m) buffer ring around each park using the multiring buffer plugin in QGIS. Ensure that “dissolve buffers” is disabled so that a single 1.2 mi buffer is created for each park.Assess the amount of overlap between the buffered park and the Census urban area using overlap analysis. This step is necessary to identify parks that do not intersect the urban area, but which lie within an urban matrix. This step creates a table that is joined back to the park polygons using the UniqueID.Remove parks that had ≤2% overlap with the urban areas when buffered. This excludes mostly non-urban parks that do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture parks that provide nearby access for urban residents. Note: In the continental version of this indicator, we used a threshold of 10%. In the Caribbean version, we lowered this to 2% in order to capture small parks that dropped out of the indicator when we extended the buffer distance to 1.2 miles.Calculate the GIS acres of each remaining park unit using the Add Geometry Attributes function.Join the buffer attribute table to the previously selected parks, retaining only the parks that exceeded the 2% urban area overlap threshold while buffered. Buffer the selected parks by 15 m. Buffering prevents very small parks and narrow beaches from being left out of the indicator when the polygons are converted to raster.Reclassify the polygons into 7 classes, seen in the final indicator values below. These thresholds were informed by park classification guidelines from the National Recreation and Park Association, which classify neighborhood parks as 5-10 acres, community parks as 30-50 acres, and large urban parks as optimally 75+ acres (Mertes and Hall 1995).Export the final vector file to a shapefile and import to ArcGIS Pro.Convert the resulting polygons to raster using the ArcPy Polygon to Raster function. Assign values to the pixels in the resulting raster based on the polygon class sizes of the contiguous park areas.Clip to the Caribbean Blueprint 2023 subregion.As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2023. Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in the Southeast Blueprint Data Download under > 6_Code. Final indicator valuesIndicator values are assigned as follows:6 = 75+ acre urban park5 = >50 to <75 acre urban park4 = 30 to <50 acre urban park3 = 10 to <30 acre urban park2 = 5 to <10 acre urban park1 = <5 acre urban park0 = Not identified as an urban parkKnown IssuesThis indicator does not include park amenities that influence how well the park serves people and should not be the only tool used for parks and recreation planning. Park standards should be determined at a local level to account for various community issues, values, needs, and available resources. This indicator includes some protected areas that are not open to the public and not typically thought of as “parks”, like mitigation lands, private easements, and private golf courses. While we experimented with excluding them using the public access attribute in PAD, due to numerous inaccuracies, this inadvertently removed protected lands that are known to be publicly accessible. As a result, we erred on the side of including the non-publicly accessible lands.This indicator includes parks and beaches from OpenStreetMap, which is a crowdsourced dataset. While members of the OpenStreetMap community often verify map features to check for accuracy and completeness, there is the potential for spatial errors (e.g., misrepresenting the boundary of a park) or incorrect tags (e.g., labelling an area as a park that is not actually a park). However, using a crowdsourced dataset gives on-the-ground experts, Blueprint users, and community members the power to fix errors and add new parks to improve the accuracy and coverage of this indicator in the future.Other Things to Keep in MindThis indicator calculates the area of each park using the park polygons from the source data. However, simply converting those park polygons to raster results in some small parks and narrow beaches being left out of the indicator. To capture those areas, we buffered parks and beaches by 15 m and applied the original area calculation to the larger buffered polygon, so as not to inflate the area by including the buffer. As a result, when the buffered polygons are rasterized, the final indicator has some areas of adjacent pixels that receive different scores. While these pixels may appear to be part of one contiguous park or suite of parks, they are scored differently because the park polygons themselves are not actually contiguous. The Caribbean version of this indicator uses a slightly different methodology than the continental Southeast version. It includes parks within a 1.2 mi distance from the Census urban area, compared to 0.5 mi in the continental Southeast. We extended it to capture East Bay and Point Udall based on feedback from the local conservation community about the importance of the park for outdoor recreation. Similarly, this indicator uses a 2% threshold of overlap between buffered parks and the Census urban areas, compared to a 10% threshold in the continental Southeast. This helped capture small parks that dropped out of the indicator when we extended the buffer distance to 1.2 miles. Finally, the Caribbean version does not use the impervious surface cutoff applied in the continental Southeast because the landcover data available in the Caribbean does not assess percent impervious in a comparable way.Disclaimer: Comparing with Older Indicator VersionsThere are numerous problems with using Southeast Blueprint

Human-nature connection (HNC) is a concept derived from investigating the formulation and extent of an individual’s identification with the natural world. This relationship is often characterized as an emotional bond to nature that develops from the contextualized, physical interactions of an individual, beginning in childhood. This outcome presents complexity in evaluating the development of HNC but suggests optimism in the pathways for enhancing lifelong HNC. As urban populations increase, there is a growing recognition worldwide of the potential for urban green space to cultivate HNC and thus shape the environmental identity of urban residents. The results of an online survey of 560 visitors to three community parks (managed primarily to provide a variety of physical, social and cultural opportunities) and three conservation parks (managed primarily to protect native plants and wildlife) in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, were used to investigate HNC. Linear mixed effects models evaluated visitors’ HNC as a function of their (1) literacy and sentiment about wildlife species, (2) park experience, (3) number and frequency of nine childhood and adult recreation experiences, and (4) demographics. Across the park response groups, the number and frequency of childhood and adult recreation experiences was significantly associated with HNC, and this positive association persisted in multiple recreation activities. Furthermore, species literacy and sentiment, visiting a park for 'Nature', and frequent and extended visitation also was significantly associated with HNC by park type. Our research demonstrates the importance of lifelong recreation experiences in the development and enhancement of HNC and provides evidence for differences in the expression of HNC associated with particular attributes of urban park visitors and their views of wildlife. Methods Methodology Study Area Madison has a population of approximately 270,000 residents, covers approximately 260 km2, and is located in south central Wisconsin, USA (US Census Bureau, 2022). Madison is currently the fastest growing city in Wisconsin and is home to the state capital and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (US Census Bureau, 2022). The study area is within the Yahara Watershed, now largely dominated by agricultural and urban land cover, and experiences four distinct seasons (Carpenter et al., 2007, Wisconsin State Climatology Office, 2010).
The six selected parks were based on their classification as a community or conservation park; an estimated visitation rate; a central, western, or eastern location in Madison; and approval from the Madison Parks Division of the City of Madison (Figure 1). The size of the community parks ranged from 19.07 ha to 101.50 ha, and the size of the conservation parks ranged from 24.39 ha to 39.17 ha. The parks can be broadly described as mixed forest ecosystems with open grass areas and low levels of pavement and structural development. Conservation parks contain native grasslands whereas community parks may contain native grasslands and/or mowed turf. By definition, conservation parks are managed to protect native plant and wildlife species, resulting in the inclusion of vegetation and management practices supporting that objective (City of Madison Parks Division, 2022). As a result of their conservation status, recreation therein is limited to physical activities such as hiking and snowshoeing and nature-based activities such as watching birds / wildlife and photography. Dogs are not allowed in conservation parks. Community parks are designed to provide a variety of physical, social, and cultural opportunities, including athletic fields and courts, playgrounds, and picnic shelters. Community parks allow dogs that are leashed and licensed (City of Madison Parks Division, 2022).
Study Population and Survey We conducted an online survey to park visitors in three conservation parks and three community parks in Madison. Our research design was approved by the University of Wisconsin Education and Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board as exempted research. We developed the survey in Google Forms and administered it in the parks using a park-specific quick response (QR) code printed either (1) on posters that were statically accessible to park visitors throughout the study period or (2) on postcards dynamically handed to park visitors at selected times during the study period. The posters were visible outdoors in all six parks from 2021-09-04 through 2021-10-24 (high-use fall period) and from 2022-06-09 through 2022-08-24 (high-use summer period). Postcards were distributed in the six parks on four Saturdays in both September and July from 10.00 to 12.00. These dates and times were selected to coincide with the days and times with the highest number of park visitors, the availability of surveyors, and the approval of the Madison City Parks Division. Each postcard had a unique three-digit number required to access the online survey. Adults (18 years or older) were approached by the surveyor (lead author and/or student assistants trained in research ethics and project specifics) and invited to participate. After verbally agreeing to participate (standard approach for exempted research), each potential respondent was asked three questions to check for nonresponse bias: (1) zip code, (2) year of birth, and (3) main reason for visitation. For poster and postcard respondents who continued on to take the online survey, the first question was a screening for informed consent, with only those who actively acknowledged consent continuing into the study’s content questions.
The online survey consisted of 30 questions, grouped into four categories: (1) literacy and sentiment about wildlife species, (2) recreation and park experience, (3) HNC, and (4) demographics. For species literacy and sentiment, respondents were asked questions evaluating (1) the correct photographic identification of six mammal species, each considered a generalist and likely present in the study parks, and (2) visitor sentiment about each species (Figure 2). For recreation activity, respondents were asked questions about (1) the number and frequency of childhood and adult experiences with bird / wildlife watching, camping, canoeing / kayaking, fishing, gardening, hiking, hunting, nature photography, and picnicking; (2) the main reason for visitation; (3) prior visitation; (4) length of visit; and (5) distance of residence to the park. For HNC, the abbreviated six-item short form of the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-6) was used, with four statements from NR-Self (1-4) and two statements from NR-Experience (5 and 6):

My connection to nature and the environment is a part of my spirituality. My relationship to nature is an important part of who I am. I feel very connected to all living things and the earth. I always think about how my actions affect the environment. My ideal vacation spot would be a remote, wilderness area. I take notice of wildlife wherever I am.

Demographic questions included age group, educational level, and gender. The survey responses were in the form of a short answer (only identification of species), exclusionary checkboxes, or a 5-point Likert scale response (“Never” to “Very Often” or “Disagree Strongly” to “Agree Strongly”). Wildlife literacy and sentiment questions were accompanied by a corresponding species-specific color photo (Figure 2). Species sentiment was measured by species-specific exclusionary responses: 'I am happy they live at the park’, ‘I think they are important for the park ecosystem', 'I am concerned about their impact on human safety', 'I am concerned that they bring disease', 'I think they are a nuisance', or 'I am unsure how I feel or do not care’. We piloted the survey with a focus group before administering it in the six parks to identify possible issues such as unclear language or challenges in viewing on mobile devices and adjusted our final survey accordingly. All survey responses were anonymous.
Analysis Initial exploratory analysis included a random effect for park type (community and conservation) and a random effect and interaction term for survey type (postcard and poster). The type of park was a significant factor, and the models afterwards were separated into two model sets, one for community park visitors and one for conservation park visitors. A random effect was included for the parks sampled (3 community parks or 3 conservation parks) within the corresponding model set. The type of survey was not a significant random effect, and the data of each type of survey were combined based on the type of park. No differences were found between the potential and actual respondents by postcard with respect to zip code, year of birth, and main reason for visitation. This suggests that nonresponse bias was unlikely.
Mixed-effects linear models were applied using the ‘lme’ function in the 'nlme' package (v3. 1-152; Pinheiro et al., 2021) of the R software, version 4.2.1 (R Core Team, 2019). As our work forwards investigation on the specific factors associated with HNC (using the mean NR-6 score of a respondent) rather than the conventional application of NR-6 as a predictor of pro-environmental behavior or self-assessed well-being, we evaluated factors independently rather than collectively. Separate models were developed for community and conservation park survey data to evaluate HNC as a function of factors within four categories: (1) species literacy and positive species sentiment; (2) number, frequency, and type of outdoor recreation activities of childhood and adulthood; (3) main reason for visitation, prior visitation, length of visit, and distance of residence to the park; and (4) demographic factors (age category, educational level, and gender). Species literacy was calculated as the average of responses recorded in six

Reliability of urban park areas between official sources and OSM for the 16 cities with official sources.

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1 cities in the Manassas Park city, VA by American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

In 2024, New York City had the highest public park and recreation spending of any city in the United States at approximately *** billion U.S. dollars. Second in the ranking was Chicago, Illinois, which spent around *** million U.S. dollars on parks and rec.

Park Safety Monitoring Analytics Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the Global Park Safety Monitoring Analytics market size was valued at $2.1 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $6.8 billion by 2033, expanding at a robust CAGR of 13.6% during the forecast period of 2025–2033. A primary factor fueling this remarkable growth is the increasing emphasis on public safety and security within recreational spaces worldwide. As urbanization accelerates and more people frequent parks for leisure and fitness, authorities and private park operators are prioritizing advanced analytics solutions to proactively monitor, detect, and mitigate safety risks. The integration of artificial intelligence, IoT sensors, and real-time data analytics is revolutionizing how parks manage incidents, crowd flow, and emergency response, thus driving substantial investments in park safety monitoring analytics technologies globally.

Regional Outlook

North America currently dominates the Park Safety Monitoring Analytics market, accounting for the largest share of 38% in 2024. This leadership is attributed to the region’s mature infrastructure, high adoption of advanced safety technologies, and robust government regulations mandating public safety in recreational spaces. Cities across the United States and Canada have made significant investments in smart surveillance, AI-driven threat detection, and integrated emergency response systems within urban and national parks. The presence of leading technology vendors and a proactive approach to adopting digital solutions have further propelled North America’s market value, which is forecast to maintain steady growth throughout the next decade. Additionally, strong collaboration between public agencies and private stakeholders has accelerated the deployment of comprehensive park safety analytics platforms, setting a benchmark for other regions.

Asia Pacific is projected to be the fastest-growing region in the Park Safety Monitoring Analytics market, registering a remarkable CAGR of 16.4% from 2025 to 2033. This rapid expansion is fueled by increasing urbanization, a surge in public infrastructure investments, and heightened awareness about safety in public spaces. Countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, and India are investing heavily in smart city initiatives, which include the integration of safety analytics in parks and recreational areas. The growing middle class, rising tourism, and government-led digital transformation programs are further driving the demand for advanced safety monitoring solutions. Local governments are also partnering with technology firms to pilot AI-enabled surveillance and crowd management tools, making Asia Pacific a hotbed for innovation and market growth in this sector.

Emerging economies in Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are experiencing a gradual uptick in the adoption of park safety monitoring analytics, albeit at a slower pace compared to developed regions. These markets face challenges such as limited funding, infrastructural gaps, and varying regulatory standards, which can impede widespread implementation. However, localized demand for safer public spaces, especially in urban centers and tourist destinations, is prompting municipalities and private operators to explore affordable and scalable analytics solutions. Policy reforms and international collaborations are beginning to facilitate technology transfer and capacity building, paving the way for future growth. Nevertheless, the market share of these regions remains modest, and overcoming barriers related to digital literacy and resource allocation will be crucial for unlocking their full potential.

Report Scope

Smart Visitor Counters for Parks Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the Global Smart Visitor Counters for Parks market size was valued at $580 million in 2024 and is projected to reach $1.42 billion by 2033, expanding at a robust CAGR of 10.5% during 2024–2033. A major factor driving the growth of this market globally is the increasing emphasis on data-driven park management and visitor experience optimization. As parks and recreational spaces face mounting pressure to balance conservation with accessibility, the deployment of advanced visitor counting solutions has become essential for resource allocation, crowd management, and infrastructure planning. The integration of IoT, AI, and real-time analytics into smart visitor counters is transforming how park authorities understand visitor patterns, enabling them to make informed decisions that enhance both operational efficiency and visitor satisfaction.

Regional Outlook

North America currently holds the largest market share in the smart visitor counters for parks market, accounting for approximately 39% of the global revenue in 2024. The region’s dominance is attributed to its mature technological infrastructure, widespread adoption of smart city initiatives, and significant investments in public park modernization. The United States, in particular, has been at the forefront of integrating advanced visitor management solutions in national and urban parks, driven by strong governmental support, public-private partnerships, and a culture that prioritizes data-driven decision-making. Additionally, the presence of leading technology providers and a high level of awareness among park authorities have contributed to rapid deployment and continuous innovation in this sector. These factors collectively position North America as the benchmark for smart visitor counter adoption and innovation.

The Asia Pacific region is emerging as the fastest-growing market, with a projected CAGR exceeding 13.2% through 2033. This remarkable growth is fueled by rapid urbanization, increasing investments in tourism infrastructure, and government initiatives aimed at enhancing the quality and safety of public recreational spaces. Countries such as China, Japan, Australia, and South Korea are leading the charge, with large-scale deployments of smart visitor counting systems in both urban and nature parks. The proliferation of smart city projects, coupled with rising disposable incomes and growing environmental awareness among the population, is accelerating the adoption of advanced park management technologies. Furthermore, partnerships between international technology vendors and local authorities are fostering knowledge transfer and facilitating the customization of solutions to meet unique regional needs.

In emerging economies across Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, the adoption of smart visitor counters for parks is gaining momentum, albeit at a slower pace due to infrastructural and budgetary constraints. While there is a clear recognition of the benefits of digital visitor management, challenges such as limited funding, inadequate technical expertise, and fragmented policy frameworks often hinder widespread implementation. Nonetheless, localized demand is rising as governments and non-profit organizations prioritize sustainable tourism and conservation. International development agencies and technology donors are increasingly supporting pilot projects in these regions, laying the groundwork for future market expansion. The gradual rollout of affordable, easy-to-deploy solutions tailored to local conditions is expected to bridge the adoption gap and drive incremental growth over the forecast period.

Report Scope

In 2024, there were almost seven park playgrounds for every 10,000 residents in Cincinnati, Ohio, making it the city with the most playgrounds per 10,000 residents. Madison, Wisconsin followed behind, with roughly 6.5 park playgrounds for every 10,000 residents.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1 cities in the Manassas Park city, VA by Some Other Race (SOR) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Reason for SelectionProtected natural areas help foster a conservation ethic by providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and also support ecosystem services like offsetting heat island effects (Greene and Millward 2017, Simpson 1998), water filtration, stormwater retention, and more (Hoover and Hopton 2019). In addition, parks, greenspace, and greenways can help improve physical and psychological health in communities (Gies 2006). However, parks are not equitably distributed within easy walking distance for everyone. It also complements the urban park size indicator by capturing the value of potential new parks.Input Data The Trust for Public Land (TPL) ParkServe database, accessed 8-8-2021: Park priority areas (ParkServe_ParkPriorityAreas_08062021) From the TPL ParkServe documentation:The ParkServe database maintains an inventory of parks for every urban area in the U.S., including Puerto Rico. This includes all incorporated and Census-designated places that lie within any of the country’s 3,000+ census-designated urban areas. All populated areas in a city that fall outside of a 10-minute walk service area are assigned a level of park priority, based on a comprehensive index of six equally weighted demographic and environmental metrics:Population densityDensity of low-income households – which are defined as households with income less than 75 percent of the urban area median household incomeDensity of people of colorCommunity health – a combined index based on the rate of poor mental health and low physical activity from the 2020 CDC PLACES census tract datasetUrban heat islands – surface temperature at least 1.25o greater than city mean surface temperature from The Trust for Public Land, based on Landsat 8 satellite imageryPollution burden - Air toxics respiratory hazard index from 2020 EPA EJScreenThe 10-minute walkFor each park, we create a 10-minute walkable service area using a nationwide walkable road network dataset provided by Esri. The analysis identifies physical barriers such as highways, train tracks, and rivers without bridges and chooses routes without barriers. CDC Social Vulnerability Index 2018: RPL_Themes Social vulnerability refers to the capacity for a person or group to “anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact” of a natural or anthropogenic disaster such as extreme weather events, oil spills, earthquakes, and fires. Socially vulnerable populations are more likely to be disproportionately affected by emergencies (Wolkin et al. 2018). In this indicator, we use the “RPL_THEMES” attribute from the Social Vulnerability Index, described here. “The Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program (GRASP) at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry developed the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). The SVI is a dataset intended to help state, local, and tribal disaster management officials identify where the most socially vulnerable populations occur (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] 2018)” (Flanagan et al. 2018). “The SVI database is regularly updated and includes 15 census variables (ATSDR 2018). Each census variable was ranked from highest to lowest vulnerability across all census tracts in the nation with a nonzero population. A percentile rank was calculated for each census tract for each variable. The variables were then grouped among four themes.... A tract-level percentile rank was also calculated for each of the four themes. Finally, an overall percentile rank for each tract as the sum of all variable rankings was calculated. This process of percentile ranking was then repeated for the individual states” (Flanagan et al. 2018). Base Blueprint 2022 extentSoutheast Blueprint 2023 extentMapping StepsConvert the ParkServe park priority areas layer to a raster using the ParkRank field. Note: The ParkRank scores are calculated using metrics classified relative to each city. Each city contains park rank values that range from 1-3. For the purposes of this indicator, we chose to target potential park areas to improve equity. Because the ParkRank scores are relative for each city, a high score in one city is not necessarily comparable to a high score from another city. In an effort to try to bring more equity into this indicator, we also use the CDC Social Vulnerability Index to narrow down the results.Reclassify the ParkServe raster to make NoData values 0. Convert the SVI layer from vector to raster based on the “RPL_Themes” field. To limit the ParkRank layer to areas with high SVI scores, first identify census tracts with an “RPL_Themes” field value >0.65. Make a new raster that assigns a value of 1 to census tracts that score >0.65, and a value of 0 to everything else. Take the resulting raster times the ParkRank layer.Reclassify this raster into the 4 classes seen in the final indicator below.Clip to the spatial extent of Base Blueprint 2022.As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2023. Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in the Southeast Blueprint Data Download under > 6_Code. Final indicator valuesIndicator values are assigned as follows:3 = Very high priority for a new park that would create nearby equitable access2 = High priority for a new park that would create nearby equitable access1 = Moderate priority for a new park that would create nearby equitable access0 = Not identified as a priority for a new park that would create nearby equitable access (within urban areas)Known Issues This indicator could overestimate park need in areas where existing parks are missing from the ParkServe database. TPL regularly updates ParkServe to incorporate the best available park data. If you notice missing parks or errors in the park boundaries or attributes, you can submit corrections through the ParkReviewer tool or by contacting TPL staff.Within a given area of high park need, the number of people served by the creation of a new park depends on its size and how centrally located it is. This indicator does not account for this variability. Similarly, while creating a new park just outside an area of high park need would create access for some people on the edge, the indicator does not capture the benefits of new parks immediately adjacent to high-need areas. For a more granular analysis of new park benefits, ParkServe’s ParkEvaluator tool allows you to draw a new park, view its resulting 10-minute walk service area, and calculate who would benefit.Beyond considering distance to a park and whether it is open to the public, this indicator does not account for other factors that might limit park access, such as park amenities or public safety. The TPL analysis excludes private or exclusive parks that restrict access to only certain individuals (e.g., parks in gated communities, fee-based sites). The TPL data includes a wide variety of parks, trails, and open space as long as there is no barrier to entry for any portion of the population.The indicator does not incorporate inequities in access to larger versus smaller parks. In predicting where new parks would benefit nearby people who currently lack access, this indicator treats all existing parks equally.This indicator identifies areas where parks are needed, but does not consider whether a site is available to become a park. We included areas of low intensity development in order to capture vacant lots, which can serve as new park opportunities. However, as a result, this indicator also captures some areas that are already used for another purpose (e.g., houses, cemeteries, and businesses) and are unlikely to become parks. In future updates, we would like to use spatial data depicting vacant lots to identify more feasible park opportunities.This indicator underestimates places in rural areas where many people within a socially vulnerable census tract would benefit from a new park. ParkServe covers incorporated and Census-designated places within census-designated urban areas, which leaves out many rural areas. We acknowledge that there are still highly socially vulnerable communities in rural areas that would benefit from the development of new parks. However, based on the source data, we were not able to capture those places in this version of the indicator. Other Things to Keep in MindThe zero values in this indicator contain three distinct types of areas that we were unable to distinguish between in the legend: 1) Areas that are not in a community analyzed by ParkServe (ParkServe covers incorporated and Census-designated places within census-designated urban areas); 2) Areas in a community analyzed by ParkServe that were not identified as a priority; 3) Areas that ParkServe identifies as a priority but do not meet the SVI threshold used to represent areas in most need of improved equitable access.This indicator only includes park priority areas that fall within the 65th percentile or above from the Social Vulnerability Index. We did not perform outreach to community leaders or community-led organizations for feedback on this threshold. This indicator is intended to generally help identify potential parks that can increase equitable access but should not be solely used to inform the creation of new parks. As the social equity component relies on information summarized by census tract, it should only be used in conjunction with local knowledge and in discussion with local communities (NRPA 2021, Manuel-Navarete et al. 2004).Disclaimer: Comparing with Older Indicator Versions There are numerous problems with using Southeast Blueprint indicators for change analysis. Please consult Blueprint staff if you would like to do this (email hilary_morris@fws.gov).Literature CitedCenters for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/ Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Park City 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 Park City. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Park City by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Park City.

Key observations

The largest age group in Park City, IL was for the group of age 20-24 years with a population of 919 (11.67%), according to the 2021 American Community Survey. At the same time, the smallest age group in Park City, IL was the 80-84 years with a population of 13 (0.17%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 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 Park City is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of Park City 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 Park City Population by Age. You can refer the same here