Out of all 50 states, New York had the highest per-capita real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024, at 92,341 U.S. dollars, followed closely by Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest per-capita real GDP, at 41,603 U.S. dollars. While not a state, the District of Columbia had a per capita GDP of more than 210,780 U.S. dollars. What is real GDP? A country’s real GDP is a measure that shows the value of the goods and services produced by an economy and is adjusted for inflation. The real GDP of a country helps economists to see the health of a country’s economy and its standard of living. Downturns in GDP growth can indicate financial difficulties, such as the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, when the U.S. GDP decreased by 2.5 percent. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on U.S. GDP, shrinking the economy 2.8 percent. The U.S. economy rebounded in 2021, however, growing by nearly six percent. Why real GDP per capita matters Real GDP per capita takes the GDP of a country, state, or metropolitan area and divides it by the number of people in that area. Some argue that per-capita GDP is more important than the GDP of a country, as it is a good indicator of whether or not the country’s population is getting wealthier, thus increasing the standard of living in that area. The best measure of standard of living when comparing across countries is thought to be GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) which uses the prices of specific goods to compare the absolute purchasing power of a countries currency.

The gross domestic product (GDP) of California was about 4.1 trillion U.S. dollars in 2024, meaning that it contributed the most out of any state to the country’s GDP in that year. In contrast, Vermont had the lowest GDP in the United States, with 45.71 billion U.S. dollars. What is GDP? Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the total monetary value of all goods and services produced by an economy within a certain time period. GDP is used by economists to determine the economic health of an area, as well as to determine the size of the economy. GDP can be determined for countries, states and provinces, and metropolitan areas. While GDP is a good measure of the absolute size of a country's economy and economic activity, it does account for many other factors, making it a poor indicator for measuring the cost or standard of living in a country, or for making cross-country comparisons. GDP of the United States The United States has the largest gross domestic product in the world as of 2023, with China, Japan, Germany, and India rounding out the top five. The GDP of the United States has almost quadrupled since 1990, when it was about 5.9 trillion U.S. dollars, to about 25.46 trillion U.S. dollars in 2022.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 2 percent in the second quarter of 2025 over the same quarter of the previous year. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States GDP Annual Growth Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 50 states in the United States by Asian population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each states over the past five years.

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

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

United States US: Aerospace Industry: Trade Balance data was reported at 48.890 USD bn in 2021. This records an increase from the previous number of 37.029 USD bn for 2020. United States US: Aerospace Industry: Trade Balance data is updated yearly, averaging 39.437 USD bn from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2021, with 32 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 86.993 USD bn in 2016 and a record low of 20.681 USD bn in 1995. United States US: Aerospace Industry: Trade Balance data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.OECD.MSTI: Trade Statistics: OECD Member: Annual.

For the United States, from 2021 onwards, changes to the US BERD survey questionnaire allowed for more exhaustive identification of acquisition costs for ‘identifiable intangible assets’ used for R&D. This has resulted in a substantial increase in reported R&D capital expenditure within BERD. In the business sector, the funds from the rest of the world previously included in the business-financed BERD, are available separately from 2008. From 2006 onwards, GOVERD includes state government intramural performance (most of which being financed by the federal government and state government own funds). From 2016 onwards, PNPERD data are based on a new R&D performer survey. In the higher education sector all fields of SSH are included from 2003 onwards.

Following a survey of federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) in 2005, it was concluded that FFRDC R&D belongs in the government sector - rather than the sector of the FFRDC administrator, as had been reported in the past. R&D expenditures by FFRDCs were reclassified from the other three R&D performing sectors to the Government sector; previously published data were revised accordingly. Between 2003 and 2004, the method used to classify data by industry has been revised. This particularly affects the ISIC category “wholesale trade” and consequently the BERD for total services.

U.S. R&D data are generally comparable, but there are some areas of underestimation:

1. i) Up to 2008, Government sector R&D performance covers only federal government activities. That by State and local government establishments is excluded;
2. ii) Except for the Government and the Business Enterprise sectors, the R&D data exclude most capital expenditures. For the Business Enterprise sector, depreciation is reported in place of gross capital expenditures up to 2014. Higher education (and national total) data were revised back to 1998 due to an improved methodology that corrects for double-counting of R&D funds passed between institutions.

Breakdown by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, etc.) was also revised back to 1998 in the business enterprise and higher education sectors due to improved estimation procedures.

The methodology for estimating researchers was changed as of 1985. In the Government, Higher Education and PNP sectors the data since then refer to employed doctoral scientists and engineers who report their primary work activity as research, development or the management of R&D, plus, for the Higher Education sector, the number of full-time equivalent graduate students with research assistantships averaging an estimated 50 % of their time engaged in R&D activities. As of 1985 researchers in the Government sector exclude military personnel. As of 1987, Higher education R&D personnel also include those who report their primary work activity as design.

Due to lack of official data for the different employment sectors, the total researchers figure is an OECD estimate up to 2019. Comprehensive reporting of R&D personnel statistics by the United States has resumed with records available since 2020, reflecting the addition of official figures for the number of researchers and total R&D personnel for the higher education sector and the Private non-profit sector; as well as the number of researchers for the government sector. The new data revise downwards previous OECD estimates as the OECD extrapolation methods drawing on historical US data, required to produce a consistent OECD aggregate, appear to have previously overestimated the growth in the number of researchers in the higher education sector.

Pre-production development is excluded from Defence GBARD (in accordance with the Frascati Manual) as of 2000. 2009 GBARD data also includes the one time incremental R&D funding legislated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Beginning with the 2000 GBARD data, budgets for capital expenditure – “R&D plant” in national terminology - are included. GBARD data for earlier years relate to budgets for current costs only.

The state of North Dakota experienced the most significant growth in real GDP in 2023, growing 7.8 percent when compared to 2022. Texas and Oklahoma also experienced growth at or more than seven percent.

Quality of life is a measure of comfort, health, and happiness by a person or a group of people. Quality of life is determined by both material factors, such as income and housing, and broader considerations like health, education, and freedom. Each year, US & World News releases its “Best States to Live in” report, which ranks states on the quality of life each state provides its residents. In order to determine rankings, U.S. News & World Report considers a wide range of factors, including healthcare, education, economy, infrastructure, opportunity, fiscal stability, crime and corrections, and the natural environment. More information on these categories and what is measured in each can be found below:

Healthcare includes access, quality, and affordability of healthcare, as well as health measurements, such as obesity rates and rates of smoking. Education measures how well public schools perform in terms of testing and graduation rates, as well as tuition costs associated with higher education and college debt load. Economy looks at GDP growth, migration to the state, and new business. Infrastructure includes transportation availability, road quality, communications, and internet access. Opportunity includes poverty rates, cost of living, housing costs and gender and racial equality. Fiscal Stability considers the health of the government's finances, including how well the state balances its budget. Crime and Corrections ranks a state’s public safety and measures prison systems and their populations. Natural Environment looks at the quality of air and water and exposure to pollution.

United States US: Total Business Enterprise R&D Personnel: Per Thousand Employment In Industry data was reported at 17.169 Per 1000 in 2020. This records an increase from the previous number of 15.152 Per 1000 for 2019. United States US: Total Business Enterprise R&D Personnel: Per Thousand Employment In Industry data is updated yearly, averaging 13.282 Per 1000 from Dec 2011 (Median) to 2020, with 10 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 17.169 Per 1000 in 2020 and a record low of 12.478 Per 1000 in 2012. United States US: Total Business Enterprise R&D Personnel: Per Thousand Employment In Industry data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.OECD.MSTI: Number of Researchers and Personnel on Research and Development: OECD Member: Annual.

Definition of MSTI variables 'Value Added of Industry' and 'Industrial Employment':

R&D data are typically expressed as a percentage of GDP to allow cross-country comparisons. When compiling such indicators for the business enterprise sector, one may wish to exclude, from GDP measures, economic activities for which the Business R&D (BERD) is null or negligible by definition. By doing so, the adjusted denominator (GDP, or Value Added, excluding non-relevant industries) better correspond to the numerator (BERD) with which it is compared to.

The MSTI variable 'Value added in industry' is used to this end:

It is calculated as the total Gross Value Added (GVA) excluding 'real estate activities' (ISIC rev.4 68) where the 'imputed rent of owner-occupied dwellings', specific to the framework of the System of National Accounts, represents a significant share of total GVA and has no R&D counterpart. Moreover, the R&D performed by the community, social and personal services is mainly driven by R&D performers other than businesses.

Consequently, the following service industries are also excluded: ISIC rev.4 84 to 88 and 97 to 98. GVA data are presented at basic prices except for the People's Republic of China, Japan and New Zealand (expressed at producers' prices).In the same way, some indicators on R&D personnel in the business sector are expressed as a percentage of industrial employment. The latter corresponds to total employment excluding ISIC rev.4 68, 84 to 88 and 97 to 98.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States was worth 29184.89 billion US dollars in 2024, according to official data from the World Bank. The GDP value of the United States represents 27.49 percent of the world economy. This dataset provides - United States GDP - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Graph and download economic data for New Privately Owned Housing Starts in the United States, Average Square Feet Per Unit for Two or More Units (HOUSTSFLAA2UMQ) from Q1 1999 to Q1 2025 about housing starts, privately owned, new, housing, and USA.

Graph and download economic data for New Privately Owned Housing Completions in the United States, Median Square Feet Per Unit for Two or More Units (COMPSFLAM2UMQ) from Q1 1987 to Q1 2025 about 2 units +, privately owned, new, median, housing, and USA.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 50 states in the United States by Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each states 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 Pacific Islander Population: This column displays the rank of states in the United States by their Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• states: The states for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Pacific Islander Population: The Pacific Islander population of the states is shown in this column.
• % of Total states Population: This shows what percentage of the total states population identifies as Pacific Islander. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total U.S. Pacific Islander Population: This tells us how much of the entire United States Pacific Islander population lives in that states. 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/.

Although the founding fathers declared American independence in 1776, and the subsequent Revolutionary War ended in 1783, individual states did not officially join the union until 1787. The first states to ratify the U.S. Constitution were Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in December 1787, and they were joined by the remainder of the thirteen ex-British colonies by 1790. Another three states joined before the turn of the nineteenth century, and there were 45 states by 1900. The final states, Alaska and Hawaii, were admitted to the union in 1959, almost 172 years after the first colonies became federal states. Secession in the American Civil War The issues of slavery and territorial expansion in the mid nineteenth century eventually led to the American Civil War, which lasted from 1861 until 1865. As the U.S. expanded westwards, a moral and economic argument developed about the legality of slavery in these new states; northern states were generally opposed to the expansion of slavery, whereas the southern states (who were economically dependent on slavery) saw this lack of extension as a stepping stone towards nationwide abolition. In 1861, eleven southern states seceded from the Union, and formed the Confederate States of America. When President Lincoln refused to relinquish federal property in the south, the Confederacy attacked, setting in motion the American Civil War. After four years, the Union emerged victorious, and the Confederate States of America was disbanded, and each individual state was readmitted to Congress gradually, between 1866 and 1870. Expansion of other territories Along with the fifty U.S. states, there is one federal district (Washington D.C., the capital city), and fourteen overseas territories, five of which with a resident population (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). In 2019, President Trump inquired about the U.S. purchasing the territory of Greenland from Denmark, and, although Denmark's response indicated that this would be unlikely, this does suggest that the US may be open to further expansion of it's states and territories in the future. There is also a movement to make Washington D.C. the 51st state to be admitted to the union, as citizens of the nation's capital (over 700,000 people) do not have voting representation in the houses of Congress nor control over many local affairs; as of 2020, the U.S. public appears to be divided on the issue, and politicians are split along party lines, as D.C. votes overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee in presidential elections.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 50 states in the United States by Non-Hispanic White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each states 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 Non-Hispanic White Population: This column displays the rank of states in the United States by their Non-Hispanic White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• states: The states for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Non-Hispanic White Population: The Non-Hispanic White population of the states is shown in this column.
• % of Total states Population: This shows what percentage of the total states population identifies as Non-Hispanic White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total U.S. Non-Hispanic White Population: This tells us how much of the entire United States Non-Hispanic White population lives in that states. 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/.

United States US: Business-Financed GERD: % of GDP data was reported at 2.512 % in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 2.401 % for 2021. United States US: Business-Financed GERD: % of GDP data is updated yearly, averaging 1.600 % from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2022, with 42 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2.512 % in 2022 and a record low of 1.121 % in 1981. United States US: Business-Financed GERD: % of GDP data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.OECD.MSTI: Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development: OECD Member: Annual.

For the United States, from 2021 onwards, changes to the US BERD survey questionnaire allowed for more exhaustive identification of acquisition costs for ‘identifiable intangible assets’ used for R&D. This has resulted in a substantial increase in reported R&D capital expenditure within BERD. In the business sector, the funds from the rest of the world previously included in the business-financed BERD, are available separately from 2008. From 2006 onwards, GOVERD includes state government intramural performance (most of which being financed by the federal government and state government own funds). From 2016 onwards, PNPERD data are based on a new R&D performer survey. In the higher education sector all fields of SSH are included from 2003 onwards.

Following a survey of federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) in 2005, it was concluded that FFRDC R&D belongs in the government sector - rather than the sector of the FFRDC administrator, as had been reported in the past. R&D expenditures by FFRDCs were reclassified from the other three R&D performing sectors to the Government sector; previously published data were revised accordingly. Between 2003 and 2004, the method used to classify data by industry has been revised. This particularly affects the ISIC category “wholesale trade” and consequently the BERD for total services.

U.S. R&D data are generally comparable, but there are some areas of underestimation:

1. i) Up to 2008, Government sector R&D performance covers only federal government activities. That by State and local government establishments is excluded;
2. ii) Except for the Government and the Business Enterprise sectors, the R&D data exclude most capital expenditures. For the Business Enterprise sector, depreciation is reported in place of gross capital expenditures up to 2014. Higher education (and national total) data were revised back to 1998 due to an improved methodology that corrects for double-counting of R&D funds passed between institutions.

Breakdown by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, etc.) was also revised back to 1998 in the business enterprise and higher education sectors due to improved estimation procedures.

The methodology for estimating researchers was changed as of 1985. In the Government, Higher Education and PNP sectors the data since then refer to employed doctoral scientists and engineers who report their primary work activity as research, development or the management of R&D, plus, for the Higher Education sector, the number of full-time equivalent graduate students with research assistantships averaging an estimated 50 % of their time engaged in R&D activities. As of 1985 researchers in the Government sector exclude military personnel. As of 1987, Higher education R&D personnel also include those who report their primary work activity as design.

Due to lack of official data for the different employment sectors, the total researchers figure is an OECD estimate up to 2019. Comprehensive reporting of R&D personnel statistics by the United States has resumed with records available since 2020, reflecting the addition of official figures for the number of researchers and total R&D personnel for the higher education sector and the Private non-profit sector; as well as the number of researchers for the government sector. The new data revise downwards previous OECD estimates as the OECD extrapolation methods drawing on historical US data, required to produce a consistent OECD aggregate, appear to have previously overestimated the growth in the number of researchers in the higher education sector.

Pre-production development is excluded from Defence GBARD (in accordance with the Frascati Manual) as of 2000. 2009 GBARD data also includes the one time incremental R&D funding legislated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Beginning with the 2000 GBARD data, budgets for capital expenditure – “R&D plant” in national terminology - are included. GBARD data for earlier years relate to budgets for current costs only.

The growth of the Internet since its inception has fueled strong demand and profitability for web design services, as both businesses and households increasingly conduct activities online. The pandemic accelerated this trend, forcing businesses to upgrade their digital presence amid lockdowns and remote work, which resulted in significant revenue gains for web designers in 2020. This trend continued in 2021 as the strong economic recovery boosted corporate profit and gave businesses greater funds to invest in the industry’s services. More recently, high inflation and rising interest rates have raised costs and curtailed demand, with some businesses opting for cheaper alternatives like templates rather than custom web design, contributing to a drop in revenue in 2022. Despite these challenges, rising stock prices linked to AI advancements pushed business income substantially upward, enabling further investment in web design through 2023 and 2024 and benefiting revenue. However, high inflation and rising interest rates have recently raised costs and curtailed demand, with some businesses opting for cheaper alternatives like templates rather than custom web design. In response to shifting client expectations, web designers now prioritize mobile-first design, rapid performance, personalization and interactive content. These adaptations, along with investments in new technologies, have allowed web designers—especially smaller ones—to differentiate themselves and sustain long-term growth. Overall, revenue for web design services companies has swelled at a CAGR of 2.3% over the past five years, reaching $47.4 billion in 2025. This includes a 1.5% rise in revenue in that year. Market saturation will limit revenue growth for website designers moving forward. With nearly all US adults now using the Internet, opportunities for finding new customers are dwindling as internet usage approaches universality. As a result, major providers may turn to mergers and acquisitions to maintain market share, while smaller companies will likely focus on niche markets or specific geographies to secure stable income. Additionally, tariffs imposed by the Trump administration could further restrain demand by increasing consumer prices, reducing disposable income and pushing the economy toward recession. In response, web designers may expand geographically to find new clients. Amid these headwinds, AI and automation technologies are transforming design workflows, increasing efficiency while fostering a greater need for skilled workers and enabling more tailored services. Companies are also adapting by prioritizing inclusivity and sustainability, attracting broader demographics and eco-conscious clients. Overall, revenue for web design services providers is forecast to inch upward at a CAGR of 1.1% over the next five years, reaching $49.9 billion in 2030.

The Terrestrial 30x30 Conserved Areas map layer was developed by the CA Nature working group, providing a statewide perspective on areas managed for the protection or enhancement of biodiversity. Understanding the spatial distribution and extent of these durably protected and managed areas is a vital aspect of tracking and achieving the “30x30” goal of conserving 30% of California's lands and waters by 2030.Terrestrial and Freshwater Data• The California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), developed and managed by GreenInfo Network, is the most comprehensive collection of data on open space in California. CPAD data consists of Holdings, a single parcel or small group of parcels which comprise the spatial features of CPAD, generally corresponding to ownership boundaries. • The California Conservation Easement Database (CCED), managed by GreenInfo Network, aggregates data on lands with easements. Conservation Easements are legally recorded interests in land in which a landholder sells or relinquishes certain development rights to their land in perpetuity. Easements are often used to ensure that lands remain as open space, either as working farm or ranch lands, or areas for biodiversity protection. Easement restrictions typically remain with the land through changes in ownership. •The Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), hosted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), is developed in coordination with multiple federal, state, and non-governmental organization (NGO) partners. PAD-US, through the Gap Analysis Project (GAP), uses a numerical coding system in which GAP codes 1 and 2 correspond to management strategies with explicit emphasis on protection and enhancement of biodiversity. PAD-US is not specifically aligned to parcel boundaries and as such, boundaries represented within it may not align with other data sources. • Numerous datasets representing designated boundaries for entities such as National Parks and Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, and others, were downloaded from publicly available sources, typically hosted by the managing agency.Methodology1.CPAD and CCED represent the most accurate location and ownership information for parcels in California which contribute to the preservation of open space and cultural and biological resources.2. Superunits are collections of parcels (Holdings) within CPAD which share a name, manager, and access policy. Most Superunits are also managed with a generally consistent strategy for biodiversity conservation. Examples of Superunits include Yosemite National Park, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. 3. Some Superunits, such as those owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, or National Park Service , are intersected by one or more designations, each of which may have a distinct management emphasis with regards to biodiversity. Examples of such designations are Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or National Monuments.4. CPAD Superunits and CCED easements were intersected with all designation boundary files to create the operative spatial units for conservation analysis, henceforth 'Conservation Units,' which make up the Terrestrial 30x30 Conserved Areas map layer. Each easement was functionally considered to be a Superunit. 5. Each Conservation Unit was intersected with the PAD-US dataset in order to determine the management emphasis with respect to biodiversity, i.e., the GAP code. Because PAD-US is national in scope and not specifically parcel aligned with California assessors' surveys, a direct spatial extraction of GAP codes from PAD-US would leave tens of thousands of GAP code data slivers within the 30x30 Conserved Areas map. Consequently, a generalizing approach was adopted, such that any Conservation Unit with greater than 80% areal overlap with a single GAP code was uniformly assigned that code. Additionally, the total area of GAP codes 1 and 2 were summed for the remaining uncoded Conservation Units. If this sum was greater than 80% of the unit area, the Conservation Unit was coded as GAP 2. 6.Subsequent to this stage of analysis, certain Conservation Units remained uncoded, either due to the lack of a single GAP code (or combined GAP codes 1&2) overlapping 80% of the area, or because the area was not sufficiently represented in the PAD-US dataset. 7.These uncoded Conservation Units were then broken down into their constituent, finer resolution Holdings, which were then analyzed according to the above workflow. 8. Areas remaining uncoded following the two-step process of coding at the Superunit and then Holding levels were assigned a GAP code of 4. This is consistent with the definition of GAP Code 4: areas unknown to have a biodiversity management focus. 9. Greater than 90% of all areas in the Terrestrial 30x30 Conserved Areas map layer were GAP coded at the level of CPAD Superunits intersected by designation boundaries, the coarsest land units of analysis. By adopting these coarser analytical units, the Terrestrial 30X30 Conserved Areas map layer avoids hundreds of thousands of spatial slivers that result from intersecting designations with smaller, more numerous parcel records. In most cases, individual parcels reflect the management scenario and GAP status of the umbrella Superunit and other spatially coincident designations.10. PAD-US is a principal data source for understanding the spatial distribution of GAP coded lands, but it is national in scope, and may not always be the most current source of data with respect to California holdings. GreenInfo Network, which develops and maintains the CPAD and CCED datasets, has taken a lead role in establishing communication with land stewards across California in order to make GAP attribution of these lands as current and accurate as possible. The tabular attribution of these datasets is analyzed in addition to PAD-US in order to understand whether a holding may be considered conserved. Tracking Conserved Areas The total acreage of conserved areas will increase as California works towards its 30x30 goal. Some changes will be due to shifts in legal protection designations or management status of specific lands and waters. However, shifts may also result from new data representing improvements in our understanding of existing biodiversity conservation efforts. The California Nature Project is expected to generate a great deal of excitement regarding the state's trajectory towards achieving the 30x30 goal. We also expect it to spark discussion about how to shape that trajectory, and how to strategize and optimize outcomes. We encourage landowners, managers, and stakeholders to investigate how their lands are represented in the Terrestrial 30X30 Conserved Areas Map Layer. This can be accomplished by using the Conserved Areas Explorer web application, developed by the CA Nature working group. Users can zoom into the locations they understand best and share their expertise with us to improve the data representing the status of conservation efforts at these sites. The Conserved Areas Explorer presents a tremendous opportunity to strengthen our existing data infrastructure and the channels of communication between land stewards and data curators, encouraging the transfer of knowledge and improving the quality of data. CPAD, CCED, and PAD-US are built from the ground up. Data is derived from available parcel information and submissions from those who own and manage the land. So better data starts with you. Do boundary lines require updating? Is the GAP code inconsistent with a Holding’s conservation status? If land under your care can be better represented in the Terrestrial 30X30 Conserved Areas map layer, please use this link to initiate a review.The results of these reviews will inform updates to the California Protected Areas Database, California Conservation Easement Database, and PAD-US as appropriate for incorporation into future updates to CA Nature and tracking progress to 30x30.

United States US: Total Researchers: Full-Time Equivalent data was reported at 1,639,258.000 FTE in 2021. This records an increase from the previous number of 1,513,964.000 FTE for 2020. United States US: Total Researchers: Full-Time Equivalent data is updated yearly, averaging 998,340.036 FTE from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2021, with 41 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,639,258.000 FTE in 2021 and a record low of 531,938.478 FTE in 1981. United States US: Total Researchers: Full-Time Equivalent data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.OECD.MSTI: Number of Researchers and Personnel on Research and Development: OECD Member: Annual.

For the United States, from 2021 onwards, changes to the US BERD survey questionnaire allowed for more exhaustive identification of acquisition costs for ‘identifiable intangible assets’ used for R&D. This has resulted in a substantial increase in reported R&D capital expenditure within BERD. In the business sector, the funds from the rest of the world previously included in the business-financed BERD, are available separately from 2008. From 2006 onwards, GOVERD includes state government intramural performance (most of which being financed by the federal government and state government own funds). From 2016 onwards, PNPERD data are based on a new R&D performer survey. In the higher education sector all fields of SSH are included from 2003 onwards.

Following a survey of federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) in 2005, it was concluded that FFRDC R&D belongs in the government sector - rather than the sector of the FFRDC administrator, as had been reported in the past. R&D expenditures by FFRDCs were reclassified from the other three R&D performing sectors to the Government sector; previously published data were revised accordingly. Between 2003 and 2004, the method used to classify data by industry has been revised. This particularly affects the ISIC category “wholesale trade” and consequently the BERD for total services.

U.S. R&D data are generally comparable, but there are some areas of underestimation:

1. i) Up to 2008, Government sector R&D performance covers only federal government activities. That by State and local government establishments is excluded;
2. ii) Except for the Government and the Business Enterprise sectors, the R&D data exclude most capital expenditures. For the Business Enterprise sector, depreciation is reported in place of gross capital expenditures up to 2014. Higher education (and national total) data were revised back to 1998 due to an improved methodology that corrects for double-counting of R&D funds passed between institutions.

Breakdown by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, etc.) was also revised back to 1998 in the business enterprise and higher education sectors due to improved estimation procedures.

The methodology for estimating researchers was changed as of 1985. In the Government, Higher Education and PNP sectors the data since then refer to employed doctoral scientists and engineers who report their primary work activity as research, development or the management of R&D, plus, for the Higher Education sector, the number of full-time equivalent graduate students with research assistantships averaging an estimated 50 % of their time engaged in R&D activities. As of 1985 researchers in the Government sector exclude military personnel. As of 1987, Higher education R&D personnel also include those who report their primary work activity as design.

Due to lack of official data for the different employment sectors, the total researchers figure is an OECD estimate up to 2019. Comprehensive reporting of R&D personnel statistics by the United States has resumed with records available since 2020, reflecting the addition of official figures for the number of researchers and total R&D personnel for the higher education sector and the Private non-profit sector; as well as the number of researchers for the government sector. The new data revise downwards previous OECD estimates as the OECD extrapolation methods drawing on historical US data, required to produce a consistent OECD aggregate, appear to have previously overestimated the growth in the number of researchers in the higher education sector.

Pre-production development is excluded from Defence GBARD (in accordance with the Frascati Manual) as of 2000. 2009 GBARD data also includes the one time incremental R&D funding legislated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Beginning with the 2000 GBARD data, budgets for capital expenditure – “R&D plant” in national terminology - are included. GBARD data for earlier years relate to budgets for current costs only.

Tariff rate, most favored nation, weighted mean, manufactured products (%) in United States was reported at 2.55 % in 2022, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. United States - Tariff rate, most favored nation, weighted mean, manufactured products - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on July of 2025.

Scientific research and development (R&D) facilities have enjoyed significant growth over the past five years as the mix of accelerating medical innovation, new global conflicts and push to advance medical treatments provided a diversified demand niche for the industry. Skyrocketing corporate profit, which boosted 6.3% over the past five years, enabled private companies to massively increase their budgets for R&D. New conflicts in the Middle East and Europe generated a wider range of defense capability needs, causing public sector clients to contract R&D companies at a more rapid pace to advance research on weapons systems and military equipment. A robust push toward sustainability across clients’ product stream further advanced new technological research in facets such as biomedical treatments. In light of these trends and an acceleration of technological adoption, revenue spiked at a CAGR of 4.9% to an estimated $320.9 billion over the past five years, including an anticipated 3.1% boost in 2025 alone. The federal government is the largest and most consistent source of revenue, so changes in federal funding levels greatly affect servicers’ performance. Many R&D sites focus on military tech, so the Trump administration's support for defense spending brought on a surge revenue. While the Biden administration originally pushed for lower defense spending, serious conflicts involving the US's allies, namely Ukraine and Israel, have brought military innovation back to the forefront of budget discussions. Although revenue growth was strong, a rebound in wage expenditures following an inflationary spike has caused a slight slowdown in profit growth. Moving forward, scientific R&D companies will continue benefiting from anticipated growth in corporate profit and sector-wide support for new research projects. While still high at 4.3% as of February 2025, the eventual stabilization in interest rates will encourage new investment. The passing of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 will benefit research labs studying alternative fuels and clean energy through tax credits that encourage private investment. New technological advances, such as UAVs and EWs, will provide greater need for technically adept R&D companies that can help strengthen military equipment research and development for the future. Additionally, anticipated growth in overall research & development expenditure across the public and private sectors will provide more funding for R&D initiatives, creating a larger field of opportunity for new researchers. Overall, revenue is expected to boost at a CAGR of 3.2% to an estimated $375.7 billion over the next five years.