In 2024, Belize had the highest share of the population living in rural areas in Central America, with over half the residents. Followed closely behind by Guatemala, with almost ** percent of the population in rural regions. In 2022, Nicaragua ranked as the third most populated country in the region, with over *********** inhabitants.

In 2023, there were approximately ***** million people living in rural areas in the United States, while about ****** million people were living in urban areas. Within the provided time period, the number of people living in urban U.S. areas has increased significantly since totaling only ****** million in 1960.

This map's colors indicate which population is larger in each area: urban (green) or rural (yellow). The map's layers contain total population counts by sex, age, and race groups for Nation, State Legislative Districts Upper, State Legislative Districts Lower, Congressional District in the United States and Puerto Rico.The U.S. Census designates each census block as part of an urban area or as rural. Larger geographies in this map such as block group, tract, county and state can therefore have a mix of urban and rural population. This map illustrates the 100% urban areas in dark green, and 100% rural areas in dark yellow. Areas with mixed urban/rural population have softer shades of green or yellow, to give a visual indication of where change may be happening. From the Census:"The Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification is a delineation of geographic areas, identifying both individual urban areas and the rural area of the nation. The Census Bureau’s urban areas represent densely developed territory, and encompass residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. The Census Bureau delineates urban areas after each decennial census by applying specified criteria to decennial census and other data. Rural encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.For the 2020 Census, an urban area will comprise a densely settled core of census blocks that meet minimum housing unit density and/or population density requirements. This includes adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses. To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,000 housing units or have a population of at least 5,000." SourceAbout the dataYou can use this map as is and you can also modify it to use other attributes included in its layers. This map's layers contain total population counts by sex, age, and race groups data from the 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics. This is shown by Nation, State, County, Census Tract, Block Group boundaries. Each geography layer contains a common set of Census counts based on available attributes from the U.S. Census Bureau. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis.Vintage of boundaries and attributes: 2020 Demographic and Housing Characteristics Table(s): P1, H1, H3, P2, P3, P5, P12, P13, P17, PCT12 (Not all lines of these DHC tables are available in this feature layer.)Data downloaded from: U.S. Census Bureau’s data.census.gov siteDate the Data was Downloaded: May 25, 2023Geography Levels included: Nation, State, County, Census Tract, Block GroupNational Figures: included in Nation layer The United States Census Bureau Demographic and Housing Characteristics: 2020 Census Results 2020 Census Data Quality Geography & 2020 Census Technical Documentation Data Table Guide: includes the final list of tables, lowest level of geography by table and table shells for the Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics.News & Updates This map is ready to be used in ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online and its configurable apps, Story Maps, dashboards, Notebooks, Python, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the U.S. Census Bureau when using this data. Data Processing Notes: These 2020 Census boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For Census tracts and block groups, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract and block group boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2020 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are unchanged and available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters).  The layer contains all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico. Census tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99). Block groups that fall within the same criteria (Block Group denoted as 0 with no area land) have also been removed.Percentages and derived counts, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name). Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the Data Table Guide for the Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics. Not all lines of all tables listed above are included in this layer. Duplicative counts were dropped. For example, P0030001 was dropped, as it is duplicative of P0010001.To protect the privacy and confidentiality of respondents, their data has been protected using differential privacy techniques by the U.S. Census Bureau.

CLICK ON THE ABOVE IMAGE TO LAUNCH THE MAP - Healthcare access issues vary greatly between urban and rural areas of New Mexico. Launch the map to explore alternate ways to classify geographies as urban or rural. These classifications are often used for food access as well as healthcare access.BIBLIOGRAPHY WITH LINKS:US Census Bureau, Urban Area - Urban Cluster FAQ - https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/2010ua_faqs.pdfAre the problems with Rural areas actually just a result of definitions that change?: "When a rural county grows, it transmutes into an urban one." - The real (surprisingly comforting) reason rural America is doomed to decline, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/24/real-surprisingly-comforting-reason-rural-america-is-doomed-decline/ (See also the complete study - http://programme.exordo.com/2018annualmeeting/delegates/presentation/130/ )Rural Definitions for Health Policy, Harvey Licht, a presentation for the University of New Mexico Center for Health Policy: : http://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=7076f283b8de4bb69bf3153bc42e0402Rural Definitions for Health Policy, update of 2019, Harvey Licht, a presentation to the NMDOH Quarterly Epidemiology Meeting, November, 2019 - http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a60a73f4e5614eb3ab01e2f96227ce4bNew Mexico Rural-Urban Counties Comparison Tables - October 2017, Harvey Licht, A preliminary compilation for the National Conference of State Legislators Rural Health Plan Taskforce : https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d3ca56e99f8b45c58522b2f9e061999eNew Mexico Rural Health Plan - Report of the Rural Health Planning Workgroup convened by the NM Department of Health 2018-2019 - http://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d4b9b66a5ca34ec9bbe90efd9562586aFrontier and Remote Areas Zip Code Map - http://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=56b4005256244499a58f863c17bbac8aHOUSING ISSUES, RURAL & URBAN, 2017 - http://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3e3aeabc04ac4672994e25a1ec94df83FURTHER READING:What is Rural? Rural Health Information Hub: https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/what-is-ruralDefining Rural. Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities: http://rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/resources/defining-rural/What is Rural? USDA: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural/National Center for Health Statistics Urban–Rural Classification Scheme: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/urban_rural.htm.Health-Related Behaviors by Urban-Rural County Classification — United States, 2013, CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6605a1.htm?s_cid=ss6605a1_wExtending Work on Rural Health Disparities, The Journal of Rural Health: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.12241/fullMinority Populations Driving Community Growth in the Rural West, Headwaters Economics: https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/trends-performance/minority-populations-driving-county-growth/ Methodology - https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/Minorities_Methods.pdfThe Role of Medicaid in Rural America, Kaiser Family Foundation: http://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-role-of-medicaid-in-rural-america/The Future of the Frontier: Water, Energy & Climate Change in America’s Most Remote Communities: http://frontierus.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/FUTURE-OF-THE-FRONTIER_Final-Version_Spring-2017.pdfRural and Urban Differences in Passenger-Vehicle–Occupant Deaths and Seat Belt Use Among Adults — United States, 2014, CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6617a1.htm

The rural-urban commuting area codes (RUCA) classify U.S. census tracts using measures of urbanization, population density, and daily commuting from the decennial census. The most recent RUCA codes are based on data from the 2000 decennial census. The classification contains two levels. Whole numbers (1-10) delineate metropolitan, micropolitan, small town, and rural commuting areas based on the size and direction of the primary (largest) commuting flows. These 10 codes are further subdivided to permit stricter or looser delimitation of commuting areas, based on secondary (second largest) commuting flows. The approach errs in the direction of more codes, providing flexibility in combining levels to meet varying definitional needs and preferences. The 1990 codes are similarly defined. However, the Census Bureau's methods of defining urban cores and clusters changed between the two censuses. And, census tracts changed in number and shapes. The 2000 rural-urban commuting codes are not directly comparable with the 1990 codes because of these differences. An update of the Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes is planned for late 2013.

In 2020, about 82.66 percent of the total population in the United States lived in cities and urban areas. As the United States was one of the earliest nations to industrialize, it has had a comparatively high rate of urbanization over the past two centuries. The urban population became larger than the rural population during the 1910s, and by the middle of the century it is expected that almost 90 percent of the population will live in an urban setting. Regional development of urbanization in the U.S. The United States began to urbanize on a larger scale in the 1830s, as technological advancements reduced the labor demand in agriculture, and as European migration began to rise. One major difference between early urbanization in the U.S. and other industrializing economies, such as the UK or Germany, was population distribution. Throughout the 1800s, the Northeastern U.S. became the most industrious and urban region of the country, as this was the main point of arrival for migrants. Disparities in industrialization and urbanization was a key contributor to the Union's victory in the Civil War, not only due to population sizes, but also through production capabilities and transport infrastructure. The Northeast's population reached an urban majority in the 1870s, whereas this did not occur in the South until the 1950s. As more people moved westward in the late 1800s, not only did their population growth increase, but the share of the urban population also rose, with an urban majority established in both the West and Midwest regions in the 1910s. The West would eventually become the most urbanized region in the 1960s, and over 90 percent of the West's population is urbanized today. Urbanization today New York City is the most populous city in the United States, with a population of 8.3 million, while California has the largest urban population of any state. California also has the highest urbanization rate, although the District of Columbia is considered 100 percent urban. Only four U.S. states still have a rural majority, these are Maine, Mississippi, Montana, and West Virginia.

How many incorporated places are registered in the U.S.?

There were 19,502 incorporated places registered in the United States as of July 31, 2019. 16,410 had a population under 10,000 while, in contrast, only 10 cities had a population of one million or more.

Small-town America

Suffice it to say, almost nothing is more idealized in the American imagination than small-town America. When asked where they would prefer to live, 30 percent of Americans reported that they would prefer to live in a small town. Americans tend to prefer small-town living due to a perceived slower pace of life, close-knit communities, and a more affordable cost of living when compared to large cities.

An increasing population

Despite a preference for small-town life, metropolitan areas in the U.S. still see high population figures, with the New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago metro areas being the most populous in the country. Metro and state populations are projected to increase by 2040, so while some may move to small towns to escape city living, those small towns may become more crowded in the upcoming decades.

COVID-19 has caused some city dwellers to consider moving to the suburbs or a rural area. The pandemic has led to an increase in remote working, which means that many employees are no longer tied to living in urban areas for work opportunities. In October 2020, ** percent of United States realtors had more clients living in the city that wished to purchase property in a suburban or rural area, as compared to January 2020. In 2020, home sales in the United States dropped drastically, with around *** million houses being sold. That is *** million houses less than the year before.

This data layer produced by the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE) program provides a geographic locale framework that classifies all U.S. territory into twelve categories ranging from Large Cities to Remote Rural areas. NCES uses this framework to describe the type of geographic area where schools and school districts are located. The criteria for these classifications are defined by NCES, but they rely on standard geographic areas developed and maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2020 NCES Locale boundaries are based on geographic areas represented in Census TIGER/Line 2020. The NCES Education Demographic and Geographic Estimate (EDGE) program collaborates with the U.S. Census Bureau’s Education Demographic, Geographic, and Economic Statistics (EDGE) Branch to annually update the locale boundaries. For more information about the NCES locale framework, see: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Geographic/LocaleBoundaries. The classifications include: City - Large (11): Territory inside an Urbanized Area and inside a Principal City with population of 250,000 or more. City - Midsize (12): Territory inside an Urbanized Area and inside a Principal City with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000. City - Small (13): Territory inside an Urbanized Area and inside a Principal City with population less than 100,000. Suburb – Large (21): Territory outside a Principal City and inside an Urbanized Area with population of 250,000 or more. Suburb - Midsize (22): Territory outside a Principal City and inside an Urbanized Area with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000. Suburb - Small (23): Territory outside a Principal City and inside an Urbanized Area with population less than 100,000. Town - Fringe (31): Territory inside an Urban Cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an Urbanized Area. Town - Distant (32): Territory inside an Urban Cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from an Urbanized Area. Town - Remote (33): Territory inside an Urban Cluster that is more than 35 miles of an Urbanized Area. Rural - Fringe (41): Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an Urbanized Area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an Urban Cluster. Rural - Distant (42): Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an Urbanized Area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an Urban Cluster. Rural - Remote (43): Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an Urbanized Area and is also more than 10 miles from an Urban Cluster.All information contained in this file is in the public _domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

Frontier and Remote Area (FAR) codes provide a statistically-based, nationally-consistent, and adjustable definition of territory in the U.S. characterized by low population density and high geographic remoteness. To assist in providing policy-relevant information about conditions in sparsely settled, remote areas of the U.S. to public officials, researchers, and the general public, ERS has developed ZIP-code-level frontier and remote (FAR) area codes. The aim is not to provide a single definition. Instead, it is to meet the demand for a delineation that is both geographically detailed and adjustable within reasonable ranges, in order to be usefully applied in diverse research and policy contexts. This initial set, based on urban-rural data from the 2000 decennial census, provides four separate FAR definition levels, ranging from one that is relatively inclusive (18 million FAR residents) to one that is more restrictive (4.8 million FAR residents).

Rural Internet System Market Outlook

The global rural internet system market size was valued at approximately USD 18 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach around USD 32 billion by 2032, growing at a robust CAGR of 6.5% during the forecast period. The key growth factor driving this market is the increasing demand for internet connectivity in remote and rural areas, fueled by governmental initiatives and technological advancements aimed at bridging the digital divide.

One of the primary drivers of growth in the rural internet system market is the global push towards digital inclusivity. Governments around the world are implementing policies and funding projects designed to provide reliable internet access to rural and underserved areas. For instance, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, which is set to invest billions in rural broadband deployment. Similar initiatives are being undertaken in developing countries, where internet access is being recognized as a crucial factor for economic development and social inclusion.

Another significant growth factor is the advancement in technology, which has made it more feasible and cost-effective to deploy internet systems in rural areas. Technologies such as Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites, 5G, and advanced fiber optic networks are breaking down previous barriers to connectivity. Satellite internet, in particular, has seen substantial advancements, with companies like SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon's Project Kuiper planning to launch thousands of satellites to provide global internet coverage, including hard-to-reach rural areas.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of reliable internet access, as remote work, online education, and telehealth services have become more prevalent. This shift has accelerated the demand for rural internet solutions as people in these areas strive to maintain connectivity with educational institutions, employers, and healthcare providers. This trend is expected to continue post-pandemic, providing a sustained boost to the rural internet system market.

Regionally, North America leads the market due to significant government funding and advanced infrastructure, followed closely by Europe and Asia Pacific. Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are also expected to witness substantial growth, driven by increasing investments in internet infrastructure and rising internet penetration rates.

Technology Analysis

The rural internet system market is segmented by technology into satellite, DSL, fiber optic, fixed wireless, and others. Satellite technology is expected to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period, driven by the advancements in LEO satellite technology. Companies like SpaceX and Amazon are investing heavily in satellite constellations that promise to deliver high-speed internet to the most remote corners of the world. These satellites can provide coverage over large areas, making them ideal for rural and underserved regions where traditional infrastructure is lacking.

DSL, or Digital Subscriber Line, remains a significant player in the rural internet system market. Although it has been around for a while, its prevalence in rural areas is due to the existing telephone infrastructure that can be utilized to provide internet services. While not as fast as fiber optic, DSL offers a viable solution for rural areas where other technologies might not be feasible due to cost or logistical reasons. Continuous improvements in DSL technology are also ensuring better speeds and reliability, keeping it relevant in the market.

Fiber optic technology is the gold standard for internet connectivity, offering the fastest speeds and highest reliability. However, its deployment in rural areas has been slower due to high costs and the complexity of infrastructure development. Nonetheless, governments and private companies are increasingly investing in fiber optic networks even in rural areas, recognizing the long-term benefits of such an investment. The growing demand for high-speed internet in rural regions for applications like online education, telehealth, and streaming services is expected to drive further investments in fiber optic technology.

Fixed wireless technology is another promising segment,

The dataset, provided both in comma-separated values (.csv) and the more informative Stata (.dta) format, contains place/year demographic data on more than 300 rural Alaska communities annually for 1990 to 2022 -- about 10,000 place/years. For each of the available place/years, the data include population estimates from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development or (in Census years) from the US Census. For a subset consisting of 104 northern or western Alaska (Arctic/subarctic) towns and villages, the dataset also contains yearly estimates of natural increase (births minus deaths) and net migration (population minus last year's population plus natural increase). Natural increase was calculated from birth and death counts provided confidentially to researchers by the Alaska Health Analytics and Vital Records Section (HAVRS). By agreement with HAVRS, the community-level birth and death counts are not available for publication. Population, natural increase, and net migration estimates reflect mid-year values, or change over the past fiscal rather than calendar year. For example, the natural increase value for a community in 2020 is based on births and deaths of residents from July 1, 2019 to June 31, 2020. We emphasize that all values here are best estimates, based on records of the Alaska government organizations. The dataset contains 19 variables: placename Place name (string) placenum Place name (numeric) placefips Place FIPS code year Year borough Borough name boroughfips Borough FIPS code latitude Latitude (decimal, - denotes S) longitude Longitude (decimal, - denotes W) town Village {0:pop2020<2,000} or town {1:pop2020>2,000} village104 104 selected Arctic/rural communities {0,1} arctic43 43 Arctic communities {0,1}, Hamilton et al. 2016 north37 37 Northern Alaska communities {0,1), Hamilton et al. 2016 pop Population (2022 data) cpopP Change in population, percent natinc Natural increase: births-deaths natincP Natural increase, percent netmig Net migration estimate netmigP Net migration, percent nipop Population without migration Three of these variables flag particular subsets of communities. The first two subsets (43 or 37 places) were analyzed in earlier publications, so the flags might be useful for replications or comparisons. The third subset (104 places) is a newer, expanded group of Arctic/subarctic towns and villages for which natural increase and net migration estimates are now available. The flag variables are: If arctic43 = 1 Subset consisting of 43 Arctic towns and villages, previously studied in three published articles: 1. Hamilton, L.C. & A.M. Mitiguy. 2009. “Visualizing population dynamics of Alaska’s Arctic communities.” Arctic 62(4):393–398. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic170 2. Hamilton, L.C., D.M. White, R.B. Lammers & G. Myerchin. 2012. “Population, climate and electricity use in the Arctic: Integrated analysis of Alaska community data.” Population and Environment 33(4):269–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-011-0145-1 3. Hamilton, L.C., K. Saito, P.A. Loring, R.B. Lammers & H.P. Huntington. 2016. “Climigration? Population and climate change in Arctic Alaska.” Population and Environment 38(2):115–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-016-0259-6 If north37 = 1 Subset consisting of 37 northern Alaska towns and villages, previously analyzed for comparison with Nunavut and Greenland in a paper on demographics of the Inuit Arctic: 4. Hamilton, L.C., J. Wirsing & K. Saito. 2018. “Demographic variation and change in the Inuit Arctic.” Environmental Research Letters 13:11507. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae7ef If village104 = 1 Expanded group consisting of 104 communities, including all those in the arctic43 and north37 subsets. This group includes most rural Arctic/subarctic communities that had reasonably complete, continuous data, and 2018 populations of at least 100 people. These data were developed by updating older work and drawing in 61 additional towns or villages, as part of the NSF-supported Arctic Village Dynamics project (OPP-1822424).

This datalayer displays the Urbanized Areas (UAs) for the state based on a January 1, 1990 ground condition. Note that the Census Bureau made significant changes in Urban/Rural designations for the Census 2000 data layers. Some of these delineations and definitions are explained below. 1990 Urban/Rural The U.S. Census Bureau defined urban for the 1990 census as consisting of all territory and population in urbanized areas (UAs) and in the urban portion of places with 2,500 or more people located outside of the UAs. The 1990 urban and rural classification applied to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 1990 Urbanized Areas A 1990 urbanized area (UA) consisted of at least one central place and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territory that together had a minimum population of 50,000 people. The densely settled surrounding territory generally consisted of an area with continuous residential development and a general overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. 1990 Extended Cities For the 1990 census, the U.S. Census Bureau distinguished the urban and rural population within incorporated places whose boundaries contained large, sparsely populated, or even unpopulated area. Under the 1990 criteria, an extended city had to contain either 25 percent of the total land area or at least 25 square miles with an overall population density lower than 100 people per square mile. Such pieces of territory had to cover at least 5 square miles. This low-density area was classified as rural and the other, more densely settled portion of the incorporated place was classified as urban. Unlike previous censuses where the U.S. Census Bureau defined extended cities only within UAs, for the 1990 census the U.S. Census Bureau applied the extended city criteria to qualifying incorporated places located outside UAs. 1990 Urbanized Area Codes Each 1990 UA was assigned a 4-digit numeric census code in alphabetical sequence on a nationwide basis based on the metropolitan area codes. Note that in Record Type C, the 1990 UA 4-digit numeric census code and Census 2000 UA 5-digit numeric census code share a 5-character field. Because of this, the 1990 4-digit UA code, in Record Type C only, appears with a trailing blank. For Census 2000 the U.S. Census Bureau classifies as urban all territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas (UAs) and urban clusters (UCs). It delineates UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which generally consists of: - A cluster of one or more block groups or census blocks each of which has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile at the time - Surrounding block groups and census blocks each of which has a population density of at least 500 people per square mile at the time, and - Less densely settled blocks that form enclaves or indentations, or are used to connect discontiguous areas with qualifying densities. Rural consists of all territory, population, and housing units located outside of UAs and UCs. For Census 2000 this urban and rural classification applies to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States. Urbanized Areas (UAs) An urbanized area consists of densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people. The U.S. Census Bureau delineates UAs to provide a better separation of urban and rural territory, population, and housing in the vicinity of large places. For Census 2000, the UA criteria were extensively revised and the delineations were performed using a zero-based approach. Because of more stringent density requirements, some territory that was classified as urbanized for the 1990 census has been reclassified as rural. (Area that was part of a 1990 UA has not been automatically grandfathered into the 2000 UA.) In addition, some areas that were identified as UAs for the 1990 census have been reclassified as urban clusters. Urban Clusters (UCs) An urban cluster consists of densely settled territory that has at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000 people. The U.S. Census Bureau introduced the UC for Census 2000 to provide a more consistent and accurate measure of the population concentration in and around places. UCs are defined using the same criteria that are used to define UAs. UCs replace the provision in the 1990 and previous censuses that defined as urban only those places with 2,500 or more people located outside of urbanized areas. Urban Area Title and Code The title of each UA and UC may contain up to three incorporated place names, and will include the two-letter U.S. Postal Service abbreviation for each state into which the UA or UC extends. However, if the UA or UC does not contain an incorporated place, the urban area title will include the single name of a census designated place (CDP), minor civil division, or populated place recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System. Each UC and UA is assigned a 5-digit numeric code, based on a national alphabetical sequence of all urban area names. For the 1990 census, the U.S. Census Bureau assigned as four-digit UA code based on the metropolitan area codes. Urban Area Central Places A central place functions as the dominant center of an urban area. The U.S. Census Bureau identifies one or more central places for each UA or UC that contains a place. Any incorporated place or census designated place (CDP) that is in the title of the urban area is a central place of that UA or UC. In addition, any other incorporated place or CDP that has an urban population of 50,000 or an urban population of at least 2,500 people and is at least 2/3 the size of the largest place within the urban area also is a central place. Extended Places As a result of the UA and UC delineations, an incorporated place or census designated place (CDP) may be partially within and partially outside of a UA or UC. Any place that is split by a UA or UC is referred t o as an extended place.

Rural and urban America have becoming increasingly divided, both politically and economically. Entrepreneurship can help rural communities catch back up by jumpstarting economic growth, creating jobs, and building resilience to economic shocks. However, less is known about firm creation in rural areas compared to urban areas. To that end, in this paper we ask: What factors predict firm creation in rural America? Our analysis, based on a comparative framework involving multiple machine learning modeling techniques, helps addresses three gaps in academic literature on rural firm creation. First, entrepreneurship research stretches across disciplines, often using econometric methods to identify the effect of a specific variable, rather than comparing the predictive importance of multiple variables. Second, research on firm creation centers on high-tech, urban firms. Third, modern machine learning techniques have not yet been applied in an integrated way to address rural entrepreneurship, a complex economic and policy problem that defies simple, monocausal claims. In this paper, we apply four machine learning methods (subset selection, lasso, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting) to a novel dataset to examine what social and economic factors are predictive of firm growth in rural Texas counties from 2008–2018. Our results suggest that some factors commonly discussed as promoting entrepreneurship (e.g., access to broadband and patents) may not be as predictive as socioeconomic ones (age distribution, ethnic diversity, social capital, and immigration). We also find that the strength of specific industries (oil, wind, healthcare, and elder/childcare) predicts firm growth, as does the number of local banks. Most factors predictive of firm growth in rural counties are distinct from those in urban counties, supporting the argument that rural entrepreneurship is a distinct phenomenon worthy of distinct focus. More broadly, this multi-model approach can offer initial, focusing guidance to policymakers seeking to address similarly complex policy problems.

The concentration of people living in small areas has increased in the last decade, with more than half of the world's population living in cities. This is particularly true for Latin America, a region with no particular high contribution to the world total population, but hosts several large cities. The increase in urbanization causes several threats to wildlife that face the loss of their habitat and novel environmental pressures. As the number of wildlife entering cities seems to have increased in the last year, we characterize the temporal and geographical events of a widely distributed carnivore, the puma, Puma concolor. We performed an exhaustive search for media news regarding the sighting, capture, and/or killing of pumas within human settlement areas, and tried to relate them with potential explanatory variables. We found a total of 162 events in Latin America in a period of the last 10 years, particularly concentrated in the year 2020. Most records came from Brazil, followed by Argentina, Chile, and Mexico. Of the total, 41% were only sightings, 58% were captures, and a minor percentage were considered as mascotism. Almost the same number of records came from highly populated areas (cities) than from low populated areas (rural) but with important differences between countries. The countries with more records in urban areas (Brazil and Mexico) showed a larger surface occupied by cities. The countries with most records in rural areas (Argentina and Chile) present the opposite pattern of occupied surface. This might indicate that different percentages of areas dedicated to cities or urban spaces might explain the differences among countries. The most important variable related to puma events in the populated areas was sky brightness, while human density and cattle density explained minor parts. The “anthropause” due to the COVID-19 pandemic might explain the larger number of records from 2020, while the absence of high-quality habitats due to fragmentation and high cattle density, might force the pumas to enter populated areas searching for food. Minor values of night lights could be related to a facilitation of efficiency of foraging behavior. Although some bias might exist in the data, the results should be taken into account as general statements for all analyzed countries.

This statistic shows the small cities and rural areas with the highest eviction rates in the United States in 2016. In 2016, Homestead Base, Florida had the third highest eviction rate at ***** percent.

Rural and urban America have becoming increasingly divided, both politically and economically. Entrepreneurship can help rural communities catch back up by jumpstarting economic growth, creating jobs, and building resilience to economic shocks. However, less is known about firm creation in rural areas compared to urban areas. To that end, in this paper we ask: What factors predict firm creation in rural America? Our analysis, based on a comparative framework involving multiple machine learning modeling techniques, helps addresses three gaps in academic literature on rural firm creation. First, entrepreneurship research stretches across disciplines, often using econometric methods to identify the effect of a specific variable, rather than comparing the predictive importance of multiple variables. Second, research on firm creation centers on high-tech, urban firms. Third, modern machine learning techniques have not yet been applied in an integrated way to address rural entrepreneurship, a complex economic and policy problem that defies simple, monocausal claims. In this paper, we apply four machine learning methods (subset selection, lasso, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting) to a novel dataset to examine what social and economic factors are predictive of firm growth in rural Texas counties from 2008–2018. Our results suggest that some factors commonly discussed as promoting entrepreneurship (e.g., access to broadband and patents) may not be as predictive as socioeconomic ones (age distribution, ethnic diversity, social capital, and immigration). We also find that the strength of specific industries (oil, wind, healthcare, and elder/childcare) predicts firm growth, as does the number of local banks. Most factors predictive of firm growth in rural counties are distinct from those in urban counties, supporting the argument that rural entrepreneurship is a distinct phenomenon worthy of distinct focus. More broadly, this multi-model approach can offer initial, focusing guidance to policymakers seeking to address similarly complex policy problems.

CLICK ON THE ABOVE IMAGE TO LAUNCH THE MAP - Healthcare access issues vary greatly between urban and rural areas of New Mexico. Launch the map to explore alternate ways to classify geographies as urban or rural. These classifications are often used for food access as well as healthcare access.BIBLIOGRAPHY WITH LINKS:Rural Definitions for Health Policy, Harvey Licht, a presentation for the University of New Mexico Center for Health Policy: : http://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=7076f283b8de4bb69bf3153bc42e0402New Mexico Rural-Urban Counties Comparison Tables - October 2017, Harvey Licht, A preliminary compilation for the National Conference of State Legislators Rural Health Plan Taskforce : https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d3ca56e99f8b45c58522b2f9e061999eFrontier and Remote Areas Map - http://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=56b4005256244499a58f863c17bbac8aFURTHER READING:What is Rural? Rural Health Information Hub: https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/what-is-ruralDefining Rural. Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities: http://rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/resources/defining-rural/What is Rural? USDA: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural/National Center for Health Statistics Urban–Rural Classification Scheme: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/urban_rural.htm.Health-Related Behaviors by Urban-Rural County Classification — United States, 2013, CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6605a1.htm?s_cid=ss6605a1_wExtending Work on Rural Health Disparities, The Journal of Rural Health: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.12241/fullMinority Populations Driving Community Growth in the Rural West, Headwaters Economics: https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/trends-performance/minority-populations-driving-county-growth/ Methodology - https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/Minorities_Methods.pdfThe Role of Medicaid in Rural America, Kaiser Family Foundation: http://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-role-of-medicaid-in-rural-america/The Future of the Frontier: Water, Energy & Climate Change in America’s Most Remote Communities: http://frontierus.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/FUTURE-OF-THE-FRONTIER_Final-Version_Spring-2017.pdfRural and Urban Differences in Passenger-Vehicle–Occupant Deaths and Seat Belt Use Among Adults — United States, 2014, CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6617a1.htm

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Ancestry listed in this table refers to the total number of people who responded with a particular ancestry; for example, the estimate given for German represents the number of people who listed German as either their first or second ancestry. This table lists only the largest ancestry groups; see the Detailed Tables for more categories. Race and Hispanic origin groups are not included in this table because data for those groups come from the Race and Hispanic origin questions rather than the ancestry question (see Demographic Table)..Data for year of entry of the native population reflect the year of entry into the U.S. by people who were born in Puerto Rico or U.S. Island Areas or born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent and who subsequently moved to the U.S..The category "with a broadband Internet subscription" refers to those who said "Yes" to at least one of the following types of Internet subscriptions: Broadband such as cable, fiber optic, or DSL; a cellular data plan; satellite; a fixed wireless subscription; or other non-dial up subscription types..An Internet "subscription" refers to a type of service that someone pays for to access the Internet such as a cellular data plan, broadband such as cable, fiber optic or DSL, or other type of service. This will normally refer to a service that someone is billed for directly for Internet alone or sometimes as part of a bundle.."With a computer" includes those who said "Yes" to at least one of the following types of computers: Desktop or laptop; smartphone; tablet or other portable wireless computer; or some other type of computer..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- ...

United States US: Population Density: People per Square Km data was reported at 35.608 Person/sq km in 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 35.355 Person/sq km for 2016. United States US: Population Density: People per Square Km data is updated yearly, averaging 26.948 Person/sq km from Dec 1961 (Median) to 2017, with 57 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 35.608 Person/sq km in 2017 and a record low of 20.056 Person/sq km in 1961. United States US: Population Density: People per Square Km data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Population density is midyear population divided by land area in square kilometers. Population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship--except for refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of their country of origin. Land area is a country's total area, excluding area under inland water bodies, national claims to continental shelf, and exclusive economic zones. In most cases the definition of inland water bodies includes major rivers and lakes.; ; Food and Agriculture Organization and World Bank population estimates.; Weighted average;