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.

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.

Abstract

The Sudan Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), was conducted from August to December 2014 at national level covering all eighteen states. The MICS was designed to collect information on a variety of socioeconomic and health indicators required to inform the planning, implementation and monitoring of national policies and programs for the enhancement of the welfare of women and children.

The survey was carried out by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) in collaboration with the ministries of health, welfare, general education, national environment, and national water cooperation as part of the global MICS program. Technical support was provided by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Food Program (WFP) and the Department for International Development (DfID) UK, provided financial support.

MICS surveys measure key indicators that allow countries to generate accurate evidence for use in policies and programs, and to monitor progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other internationally agreed upon commitments. The Sudan Multiple Indicator Survey is a nationally representative sample survey. Interviews were successfully completed in 15,801 households drawn from a sample of 18,000 households in all 18 states of Sudan with an overall response rate of 98 percent. 20,327 women in the 15-49 years age group, and 14,751 children under 5 years of age. The specific objectives of the survey is to:

1. Update information for assessing the situation of children and women in Sudan based on MICS5 modules and geographical coverage of the 18 States in Sudan.
2. Measure the trend towards achievement of the MDGs and the goals of a World Fit For Children Plan of Action and other internationally agreed upon indicators related to children and women.
3. Furnish data needed for the indicators as per the global review of the Millennium Development Goals.
4. Contribute to the improvement of data and monitoring systems in Sudan and to strengthen technical expertise, national capacity building in the design, implementation, and analysis of such systems.
5. Update Census indicators and provide solid evidence for decentralization (planning and measure of progress).
6. Provide key evidence for social sector programming and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) under development and accountabilities for sector strategic plans and UNDAF 2013-2016.

Results presented in this survey have been reviewed by the national MICS Technical Committee and approved by the national MICS Steering Committee. The results are not expected to change and are considered final.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Individuals
• Households

Universe

The survey covered all women aged between 15-49 years and all children under 5 living in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The primary objective of the sample design for the Sudan MICS 2014 was to produce statistically reliable estimates for a large number of indicators at the national level. This included urban and rural areas and the eighteen states of the country namely: Northern, River Nile, Red Sea, Kassala, Gadaraf, Khartoum, Gezira, Sinnar, Blue Nile, White Nile, North Kordofan, South Kordofan, North Darfur, West Darfur, South Darfur, and the recent established West Kordofan, Eastern Darfur and Central Darfur.

In order to produce state level estimates of moderate precision, a minimum of 30 enumeration areas (EAs) were selected in each state, resulting in a sample that was not self-weighting. Urban and rural areas in each of the eighteen states were defined as the sampling strata and a multi two-stage, stratified cluster sampling approach was used for the selection of the survey sample.

In the first stage within each stratum, a specified number of EAs were selected systematically with probability proportional to size. In the second stage, after a household listing was carried out within the selected enumeration areas, a systematic sample of 25 households was drawn in each selected EA.

Out of the 18,000 households selected in the sample, 17,142 were found to be occupied. Of these 16,801 were successfully interviewed for a household response rate of 98 percent. In the interviewed households 20,327 women (age 15-49 years) were identified. Of these 18,302 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 90 percent. In addition to the women 14,751 children under the age of five years were listed in the household questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed for 14,081 of these children, corresponding to the under-5 response rates of 95.5 percent within the interviewed households. The highest response rates at state level for households was in South Darfur at 99.3 percent, while the lowest response rates were in West Kordofan at 93.4 percent. Response rates were slightly higher in rural areas at 98.5 percent than in urban areas at 96.8 percent. The highest response rates among eligible women between 15-49 years was 96.6 percent in Giezera State while the lowest response rates of 78.1 percent were in North Darfur. Similarly, the highest response rates among eligible children under-5 was recorded for Giezera which was 96.9 percent and the lowest response rates was also in North Darfur at 87.9 percent.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Three types of questionnaires were used in the survey: 1. Household Questionnaire: It was used to collect information on all de jure household members, the household, and the dwelling 2. Women Questionnaire: It was administered in each household to all women aged 15-49 years 3. Children under five Questionnaire: It was administered to mothers or caretakers of all children under 5 years living in the household.

Cleaning operations

Data were entered into the computers using the Census and Surveys Processing System (CSPro) software package, Version 5.0. The data were entered on 32 desktop computers by 40 data entry operators and 9 data entry supervisors. For quality assurance purposes, all questionnaires were double-entered and internal consistency checks were performed. Procedures and standard programs developed under the global MICS programs and adapted to the Sudan questionnaires were used throughout. Data of entry started on September 14 and was completed on November 27 2014. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, Version 21. Model syntax and tabulation plans developed by the Global MICS team were customized and used for this purpose.

Response rate

The Sudan MICS 2014 was based on a representative sample of 15,801 households drawn from a sample 18,000 households. All 18 states of Sudan with an overall response rate of 98 percent.

Sampling error estimates

MICS 2014 was conducted in a very challenging context of ongoing long term armed conflicts and many displacements of populations prevailing in Darfur and Kordofan states as well as the outstanding high risk mining areas. A very large sample design was defined for MICS 2014 in Sudan. It comprised of 720 Clusters (40 per state), 18,000 Households (1,000 per state) in order to ensure adequate representation of statistical estimation by each state.

During the implementation of the field data collection, the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) was constrained to proceed to the replacement of 22 clusters among 720 sampled for the survey (which represented 3%).The maximum number of clusters were replaced within states in four clusters in the Red Sea, West Kordofan, East Darfur and Central Darfur. This was in addition to the two clusters in Kassala and one cluster each in South Darfur, West Darfur, Khartoum and Gedaref. The main reason for the replacement of clusters was as follows: 1. Insecurity in Darfur States 2. Mining area in Kassala State 3. The displacement of population in the Red Sea 4. The rainy season in Gadaref State

CBS benefited from solid expertise of consulting in sampling and developed adequate technical measures by providing the field work team leader. Clear instructions enabled to perform the replacement in close compliance to the statistical practice of replacement of the enumeration area by choosing the nearest accessible area using a list of frame in respect to urban and rural areas. Taking into account the provisional measure of sample design which included 10 percent of “non-respondents rate” and the expansion of initial calculated required sample from 930 clusters to 1,000. Any anticipated error which may have emerged from the replacements was fully absorbed. Indicators measured for MICS 2014 in Sudan were not affected by the replacement of 22 clusters (from 1 to 4 into some states).

This map uses dot density patterns to indicate which population is larger in each area: urban (green) or rural (blue). Data is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics. The map's layers contain total population counts by sex, age, and race groups for Nation, State, County, Census Tract, and Block Group 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 with all green dots, and 100% rural areas in dark blue dots. Areas with mixed urban/rural population have a proportional mix of green and blue dots 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.

Rural population (% of total population) in India was reported at 63.64 % in 2023, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. India - Rural population - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on July of 2025.

PLURAL (Place-level urban-rural indices) is a framework to create continuous classifications of "rurality" or "urbanness" based on the spatial configuration of populated places. PLURAL makes use of the concept of "remoteness" to characterize the level of spatial isolation of a populated place with respect to its neighbors. There are two implementations of PLURAL, including (a) PLURAL-1, based on distances to the nearest places of user-specified population classes, and (b) PLURAL-2, based on neighborhood characterization derived from spatial networks. PLURAL requires simplistic input data, i.e., the coordinates (x,y) and population p of populated places (villages, towns, cities) in a given point in time. Due to its simplistic input, the PLURAL rural-urban classification scheme can be applied to historical data, as well as to data from data-scarce settings. Using the PLURAL framework, we created place-level rural-urban indices for the conterminous United States from 1930 to 2018. Rural-urban classifications are essential for analyzing geographic, demographic, environmental, and social processes across the rural-urban continuum. Most existing classifications are, however, only available at relatively aggregated spatial scales, such as at the county scale in the United States. The absence of rurality or urbanness measures at high spatial resolution poses significant problems when the process of interest is highly localized, as with the incorporation of rural towns and villages into encroaching metropolitan areas. Moreover, existing rural-urban classifications are often inconsistent over time, or require complex, multi-source input data (e.g., remote sensing observations or road network data), thus, prohibiting the longitudinal analysis of rural-urban dynamics. We developed a set of distance- and spatial-network-based methods for consistently estimating the remoteness and rurality of places at fine spatial resolution, over long periods of time. Based on these methods, we constructed indices of urbanness for 30,000 places in the United States from 1930 to 2018. We call these indices the place-level urban-rural index (PLURAL), enabling long-term, fine-grained analyses of urban and rural change in the United States. The method paper has been peer-reviewed and is published in "Landscape and Urban Planning". The PLURAL indices from 1930 to 2018 are available as CSV files, and as point-based geospatial vector data (.SHP). Moreover, we provide animated GIF files illustrating the spatio-temporal variation of the different variants of the PLURAL indices, illustrating the dynamics of the rural-urban continuum in the United States from 1930 to 2018. Apply the PLURAL rural-urban classification to your own data: Python code is fully open source and available at https://github.com/johannesuhl/plural. Data sources: Place-level population counts (1980-2010) and place locations 1930 - 2018 were obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, (University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org; Manson et al. 2022). Place-level population counts 1930-1970 were digitized from historical census records (U.S. Census Bureau 1942, 1964). References: Uhl, J.H., Hunter, L.M., Leyk, S., Connor, D.S., Nieves, J.J., Hester, C., Talbot, C. and Gutmann, M., 2023. Place-level urban–rural indices for the United States from 1930 to 2018. Landscape and Urban Planning, 236, p.104762. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104762 Steven Manson, Jonathan Schroeder, David Van Riper, Tracy Kugler, and Steven Ruggles. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 16.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. 2021. http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V16.0 U.S. Census Bureau (1942). U.S. Census of Population: 1940. Vol. I, Number of Inhabitants. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Census Bureau (1964). U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population. Part I, United States Summary. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

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.

Each year, the Forecasting and Trends Office (FTO) publishes population estimates and future year projections based on the population estimates developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. This dataset contains boundaries for each county’s 2010 rural (non-urban) area in the State of Florida with 2020 census population and 2021 population estimates. The population estimates can be used for a variety of planning studies including statewide and regional transportation plan updates, subarea and corridor studies, and funding allocations for various planning agencies.Each year, the Forecasting and Trends Office (FTO) publishes population estimates and future year projections. The population estimates can be used for a variety of planning studies including statewide and regional transportation plan updates, subarea and corridor studies, and funding allocations for various planning agencies.The 2020 population estimates reported are based on the US Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census. The 2021 population estimates are based on the population estimates developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. BEBR uses the decennial census count for April 1, 2020, as the starting point for state-level projections. More information is available from BEBR here.This dataset contains boundaries for each county’s 2010 rural (non-urban) area in the State of Florida with 2020 census population and 2021 population estimates. All legal boundaries and names in this dataset are from the US Census Bureau’s TIGER/Line Files (2021).For the 2010 Census, urban areas comprised a “densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core.” “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Please see the Data Dictionary for more information on data fields. Data Sources:US Census Bureau 2020 Decennial CensusUS Census Bureau’s TIGER/Line Files (2021)Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) – Florida Estimates of Population 2021 Data Coverage: StatewideData Time Period: 2020 – 2021 Date of Publication: July 2022 Point of Contact:Dana Reiding, ManagerForecasting and Trends OfficeFlorida Department of TransportationDana.Reiding@dot.state.fl.us605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399850-414-4719

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued on May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

The surveillance case definition for COVID-19, a nationally notifiable disease, was first described in a position statement from the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which was later revised. However, there is some variation in how jurisdictions implemented these case definitions. More information on how CDC collects COVID-19 case surveillance data can be found at FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were reported from state and local health departments through a robust process with the following steps:

• Aggregate county-level counts were obtained indirectly, via automated overnight web collection, or directly, via a data submission process.
• If more than one official county data source existed, CDC used a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source to retrieve the highest case and death counts, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• A CDC data team reviewed counts for congruency prior to integration and set up alerts to monitor for discrepancies in the data.
• CDC routinely compiled these data and post the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data were aggregated to obtain state- and territory- specific totals.
• Counting of cases and deaths is based on date of report and not on the date of symptom onset. CDC calculates rates in these data by using population estimates provided by the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).
• COVID-19 aggregate case and death data are organized in a time series that includes cumulative number of cases and deaths as reported by a jurisdiction on a given date. New case and death counts are calculated as the week-to-week change in cumulative counts of cases and deaths reported (i.e., newly reported cases and deaths = cumulative number of cases/deaths reported this week minus the cumulative total reported the prior week.

This process was collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provided the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. Throughout data collection, CDC retrospectively updated counts to correct known data quality issues.

Description This archived public use dataset focuses on the cumulative and weekly case and death rates per 100,000 persons within various sociodemographic factors across all states and their counties. All resulting data are expressed as rates calculated as the number of cases or deaths per 100,000 persons in counties meeting various classification criteria using the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).

Each county within jurisdictions is classified into multiple categories for each factor. All rates in this dataset are based on classification of counties by the characteristics of their population, not individual-level factors. This applies to each of the available factors observed in this dataset. Specific factors and their corresponding categories are detailed below.

Population-level factors Each unique population factor is detailed below. Please note that the “Classification” column describes each of the 12 factors in the dataset, including a data dictionary describing what each numeric digit means within each classification. The “Category” column uses numeric digits (2-6, depending on the factor) defined in the “Classification” column.

Metro vs. Non-Metro – “Metro_Rural” Metro vs. Non-Metro classification type is an aggregation of the 6 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural classifications, where “Metro” counties include Large Central Metro, Large Fringe Metro, Medium Metro, and Small Metro areas and “Non-Metro” counties include Micropolitan and Non-Core (Rural) areas. 1 – Metro, including “Large Central Metro, Large Fringe Metro, Medium Metro, and Small Metro” areas 2 – Non-Metro, including “Micropolitan, and Non-Core” areas

Urban/rural - “NCHS_Class” Urban/rural classification type is based on the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. Levels consist of:

1 Large Central Metro
2 Large Fringe Metro 3 Medium Metro 4 Small Metro 5 Micropolitan 6 Non-Core (Rural)

American Community Survey (ACS) data were used to classify counties based on their age, race/ethnicity, household size, poverty level, and health insurance status distributions. Cut points were generated by using tertiles and categorized as High, Moderate, and Low percentages. The classification “Percent non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander” is only available for “Hawaii” due to low numbers in this category for other available locations. This limitation also applies to other race/ethnicity categories within certain jurisdictions, where 0 counties fall into the certain category. The cut points for each ACS category are further detailed below:

Age 65 - “Age65”

1 Low (0-24.4%) 2 Moderate (>24.4%-28.6%) 3 High (>28.6%)

Non-Hispanic, Asian - “NHAA”

1 Low (<=5.7%) 2 Moderate (>5.7%-17.4%) 3 High (>17.4%)

Non-Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native - “NHIA”

1 Low (<=0.7%) 2 Moderate (>0.7%-30.1%) 3 High (>30.1%)

Non-Hispanic, Black - “NHBA”

1 Low (<=2.5%) 2 Moderate (>2.5%-37%) 3 High (>37%)

Hispanic - “HISP”

1 Low (<=18.3%) 2 Moderate (>18.3%-45.5%) 3 High (>45.5%)

Population in Poverty - “Pov”

1 Low (0-12.3%) 2 Moderate (>12.3%-17.3%) 3 High (>17.3%)

Population Uninsured- “Unins”

1 Low (0-7.1%) 2 Moderate (>7.1%-11.4%) 3 High (>11.4%)

Average Household Size - “HH”

1 Low (1-2.4) 2 Moderate (>2.4-2.6) 3 High (>2.6)

Community Vulnerability Index Value - “CCVI” COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI) scores are from Surgo Ventures, which range from 0 to 1, were generated based on tertiles and categorized as:

1 Low Vulnerability (0.0-0.4) 2 Moderate Vulnerability (0.4-0.6) 3 High Vulnerability (0.6-1.0)

Social Vulnerability Index Value – “SVI" Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) scores (vintage 2020), which also range from 0 to 1, are from CDC/ASTDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Service Program. Cut points for CCVI and SVI scores were generated based on tertiles and categorized as:

1 Low Vulnerability (0-0.333) 2 Moderate Vulnerability (0.334-0.666) 3 High Vulnerability (0.667-1)

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 to as an extended place.

United States US: Urban Population Living in Areas Where Elevation is Below 5 meters: % of Total Population data was reported at 2.264 % in 2010. This records an increase from the previous number of 2.246 % for 2000. United States US: Urban Population Living in Areas Where Elevation is Below 5 meters: % of Total Population data is updated yearly, averaging 2.264 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2010, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2.329 % in 1990 and a record low of 2.246 % in 2000. United States US: Urban Population Living in Areas Where Elevation is Below 5 meters: % of Total Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.World Bank: Land Use, Protected Areas and National Wealth. Urban population below 5m is the percentage of the total population, living in areas where the elevation is 5 meters or less.; ; Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)/Columbia University. 2013. Urban-Rural Population and Land Area Estimates Version 2. Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/lecz-urban-rural-population-land-area-estimates-v2.; Weighted Average;

Rural population (% of total population) in Nigeria was reported at 45.72 % in 2023, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Nigeria - Rural population - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on June of 2025.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in China in late 2019, and subsequently spread across the world during the first several months of 2020, has had a dramatic impact on all facets of life. At the same time, it has not manifested in the same way in every nation. Some countries experienced a large initial spike in cases and deaths, followed by a rapid decline, whereas others had relatively low rates of both outcomes throughout the first half of 2020. The United States experienced a unique pattern of the virus, with a large initial spike, followed by a moderate decline in cases, followed by second and then third spikes. In addition, research has shown that in the United States the severity of the pandemic has been associated with poverty and access to health care services. This study was designed to examine whether the course of the pandemic has been uniform across America, and if not how it differed, particularly with respect to poverty. Results of a random intercept multilevel mixture model revealed that the pandemic followed four distinct paths in the country. The least ethnically diverse (85.1% white population) and most rural (82.8% rural residents) counties had the lowest death rates (0.06/1000) and the weakest link between deaths due to COVID-19 and poverty (b = 0.03). In contrast, counties with the highest proportion of urban residents (100%), greatest ethnic diversity (48.2% nonwhite), and highest population density (751.4 people per square mile) had the highest COVID-19 death rates (0.33/1000), and strongest relationship between the COVID-19 death rate and poverty (b = 46.21). Given these findings, American policy makers need to consider developing responses to future pandemics that account for local characteristics. These responses must take special account of pandemic responses among people of color, who suffered the highest death rates in the nation.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, for 2020, the 2020 Census provides the official counts of the population and housing units for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns. For 2016 to 2019, the Population Estimates Program provides estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and intercensal housing unit estimates for the nation, states, and counties..This table provides geographical mobility for persons relative to their residence at the time they were surveyed. The characteristics crossed by geographical mobility reflect the current survey year..The number of people moving out of Alaska to a different state has been overestimated in previous years due to collection issues. See Errata Notes for details..Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.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, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.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..The Hispanic origin and race codes were updated in 2020. For more information on the Hispanic origin and race code changes, please visit the American Community Survey Technical Documentation website..The 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the September 2018 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. In certain instances, the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineation lists due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 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.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- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

More than 39 million people and 14.2 million households span more than 163,000 square miles of Californian’s urban, suburban and rural communities. California has the fifth largest economy in the world and is the most populous state in the nation, with nation-leading diversity in race, ethnicity, language and socioeconomic conditions. These characteristics make California amazingly unique amongst all 50 states, but also present significant challenges to counting every person and every household, no matter the census year. A complete and accurate count of a state’s population in a decennial census is essential. The results of the 2020 Census will inform decisions about allocating hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding to communities across the country for hospitals, fire departments, school lunch programs and other critical programs and services. The data collected by the United States Census Bureau (referred hereafter as U.S. Census Bureau) also determines the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and will be used to redraw State Assembly and Senate boundaries. California launched a comprehensive Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (referred to hereafter as the Campaign) to support an accurate and complete count of Californians in the 2020 Census. Due to the state’s unique diversity and with insights from past censuses, the Campaign placed special emphasis on the hardest-tocount Californians and those least likely to participate in the census. The California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (referred to hereafter as the Census Office) coordinated the State’s operations to complement work done nationally by the U.S. Census Bureau to reach those households most likely to be missed because of barriers, operational or motivational, preventing people from filling out the census. The Campaign, which began in 2017, included key phases, titled Educate, Motivate and Activate. Each of these phases were designed to make sure all Californians knew about the census, how to respond, their information was safe and their participation would help their communities for the next 10 years.

The data presents community surveys from rural Uganda and Zambia. Using a novel community survey, we collected rural dwellers’ views on the state of and perceptions towards community engagement in rural electrification. The survey was designed to explore rural electrification preferences and challenges, as well as to identify opportunities to improve interaction of community members with private energy busi- nesses as well as public sector institutions. Questions included their current and desired degree of involvement and decision-making power in energy access programmes in their communities, how, through whom and via which means they wish to engage with energy access issues, how they access information about energy access programmes and options, and for which activities they require modern forms of energy. We furthermore recorded characteristics such as age, education level, in- come level, gender, connection to electricity, district and sub-national region for each respondent. The questionnaire also captured supporting information such as community priority needs and challenges, experiences and willingness to pay for electricity services.

Achieving energy access for all is a UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) in itself, and directly facilitates the SDGs of sustainable industrialisation, sustainable cities and communities, and reducing inequality. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the most energy-deprived region in the world, arguably constitutes the greatest obstacle for realising these goals. An estimated 700 million people in SSA - the majority of them in rural areas -lack electricity access, a number that is only expected to rise as the continent's rural population growth outpaces capacity growth. The three SDG dimensions of achieving energy access - affordability, reliability and sustainability - each stand in stark contrast to the status quo: while the cost of electricity in SSA can be orders of magnitude higher than in industrialised countries, blackouts are frequent, and less than a quarter of energy supply comes from renewable sources. Energy poverty has impaired SSA's economic development since its independence in the 1960s, indicating that new approaches are urgently required. Given the extent of rural energy poverty, limited rural purchasing power and logistical difficulties, innovative, locally driven business models for the renewable energy sector are required to achieve comprehensive rural electrification in SSA. In particular, rapidly falling system costs have made renewable off-grid solutions the cheapest and cleanest option in many remote areas. However, three main issues have prevented sustainable electrification: difficulties in attracting international investment to small-scale renewables; inconsistent and often opaque regulatory and institutional frameworks; and a failure to include local communities, i.e. customers, in planning. Research to date is alarmingly scarce in all three of these areas in SSA. This interdisciplinary research therefore aims to design integrated, actionable and transferable development strategies for the local renewable energy sector capable of delivering comprehensive, sustainable rural electrification in SSA. Echoing the GCRF call's sentiment, we believe that the way to unlock this potential is via scaling up small to medium-sized innovative business models, institutional reforms and social inclusion strategies. The research pursues three mutually reinforcing areas of inquiry: suitable business models for a competitive local renewable electrification industry; optimal institutional arrangements to facilitate the development of the industry; and enabling community involvement, especially in rural areas. We deploy a comparative country case study approach, focusing on the contrasting situations of Uganda and Zambia, in order to increase the generalizability of our findings for other countries in SSA.

The proposed project is deeply committed to deliver impact beyond academia. Identifying current barriers to scaling rural electrification and developing solutions to overcome them can only be successfully achieved through including local business, public sector and communal stakeholders. These stakeholder groups - including Uganda's and Zambia's regulatory and legislative bodies, local businesses, and civil society - will therefore be repeatedly engaged throughout and, where possible, beyond the project. We will use several channels to implement our results: practitioner reports targeted at African renewable energy SMEs and energy regulators; the development and implementation of innovative business models, including novel financing and revenue schemes developed with community input; a digital SME renewable energy network where different companies in SSA can directly engage with one another; workshops to convene all stakeholder groups; private one-to-one meetings with public sector representatives; and research seminars at local universities to train future...

As of 2025, over half of U.S. rural hospitals did not offer labor and delivery services. In ** states in the country, over two-thirds of rural hospitals did not offer maternity care services. A lack of obstetric services in rural hospitals was most prolific in states such as Florida and North Dakota, with ** percent, and ** percent of hospitals respectively.

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..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..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..Households not paying cash rent are excluded from the calculation of median gross rent..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- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

Abstract

The Afrobarometer project assesses attitudes and public opinion on democracy, markets, and civil society in several sub-Saharan African.This dataset was compiled from the studies in Round 3 of the Afrobarometer survey, conducted from 2005-2006 in 18 African countries (Benin, Botswana, Cape Verde, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe).

Geographic coverage

The Afrobarometer surveys have national coverage

Botswana Lesotho Malawi Namibia South Africa Zambia Zimbabwe Ghana Mali Nigeria Tanzania Uganda Cape Verde Mozambique Senegal Kenya Benin Madagascar

Analysis unit

Basic units of analysis that the study investigates include: individuals and groups

Universe

The sample universe for Afrobarometer surveys includes all citizens of voting age within the country. In other words, we exclude anyone who is not a citizen and anyone who has not attained this age (usually 18 years) on the day of the survey. Also excluded are areas determined to be either inaccessible or not relevant to the study, such as those experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters, as well as national parks and game reserves. As a matter of practice, we have also excluded people living in institutionalized settings, such as students in dormitories and persons in prisons or nursing homes.

What to do about areas experiencing political unrest? On the one hand we want to include them because they are politically important. On the other hand, we want to avoid stretching out the fieldwork over many months while we wait for the situation to settle down. It was agreed at the 2002 Cape Town Planning Workshop that it is difficult to come up with a general rule that will fit all imaginable circumstances. We will therefore make judgments on a case-by-case basis on whether or not to proceed with fieldwork or to exclude or substitute areas of conflict. National Partners are requested to consult Core Partners on any major delays, exclusions or substitutions of this sort.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A new sample has to be drawn for each round of Afrobarometer surveys. Whereas the standard sample size for Round 3 surveys will be 1200 cases, a larger sample size will be required in societies that are extremely heterogeneous (such as South Africa and Nigeria), where the sample size will be increased to 2400. Other adaptations may be necessary within some countries to account for the varying quality of the census data or the availability of census maps.

The sample is designed as a representative cross-section of all citizens of voting age in a given country. The goal is to give every adult citizen an equal and known chance of selection for interview. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible. A randomly selected sample of 1200 cases allows inferences to national adult populations with a margin of sampling error of no more than plus or minus 2.5 percent with a confidence level of 95 percent. If the sample size is increased to 2400, the confidence interval shrinks to plus or minus 2 percent.

Sample Universe

The sample universe for Afrobarometer surveys includes all citizens of voting age within the country. In other words, we exclude anyone who is not a citizen and anyone who has not attained this age (usually 18 years) on the day of the survey. Also excluded are areas determined to be either inaccessible or not relevant to the study, such as those experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters, as well as national parks and game reserves. As a matter of practice, we have also excluded people living in institutionalized settings, such as students in dormitories and persons in prisons or nursing homes.

What to do about areas experiencing political unrest? On the one hand we want to include them because they are politically important. On the other hand, we want to avoid stretching out the fieldwork over many months while we wait for the situation to settle down. It was agreed at the 2002 Cape Town Planning Workshop that it is difficult to come up with a general rule that will fit all imaginable circumstances. We will therefore make judgments on a case-by-case basis on whether or not to proceed with fieldwork or to exclude or substitute areas of conflict. National Partners are requested to consult Core Partners on any major delays, exclusions or substitutions of this sort.

Sample Design

The sample design is a clustered, stratified, multi-stage, area probability sample.

To repeat the main sampling principle, the objective of the design is to give every sample element (i.e. adult citizen) an equal and known chance of being chosen for inclusion in the sample. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible.

In a series of stages, geographically defined sampling units of decreasing size are selected. To ensure that the sample is representative, the probability of selection at various stages is adjusted as follows:

The sample is stratified by key social characteristics in the population such as sub-national area (e.g. region/province) and residential locality (urban or rural). The area stratification reduces the likelihood that distinctive ethnic or language groups are left out of the sample. And the urban/rural stratification is a means to make sure that these localities are represented in their correct proportions. Wherever possible, and always in the first stage of sampling, random sampling is conducted with probability proportionate to population size (PPPS). The purpose is to guarantee that larger (i.e., more populated) geographical units have a proportionally greater probability of being chosen into the sample. The sampling design has four stages

A first-stage to stratify and randomly select primary sampling units;

A second-stage to randomly select sampling start-points;

A third stage to randomly choose households;

A final-stage involving the random selection of individual respondents

We shall deal with each of these stages in turn.

STAGE ONE: Selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs)

The primary sampling units (PSU's) are the smallest, well-defined geographic units for which reliable population data are available. In most countries, these will be Census Enumeration Areas (or EAs). Most national census data and maps are broken down to the EA level. In the text that follows we will use the acronyms PSU and EA interchangeably because, when census data are employed, they refer to the same unit.

We strongly recommend that NIs use official national census data as the sampling frame for Afrobarometer surveys. Where recent or reliable census data are not available, NIs are asked to inform the relevant Core Partner before they substitute any other demographic data. Where the census is out of date, NIs should consult a demographer to obtain the best possible estimates of population growth rates. These should be applied to the outdated census data in order to make projections of population figures for the year of the survey. It is important to bear in mind that population growth rates vary by area (region) and (especially) between rural and urban localities. Therefore, any projected census data should include adjustments to take such variations into account.

Indeed, we urge NIs to establish collegial working relationships within professionals in the national census bureau, not only to obtain the most recent census data, projections, and maps, but to gain access to sampling expertise. NIs may even commission a census statistician to draw the sample to Afrobarometer specifications, provided that provision for this service has been made in the survey budget.

Regardless of who draws the sample, the NIs should thoroughly acquaint themselves with the strengths and weaknesses of the available census data and the availability and quality of EA maps. The country and methodology reports should cite the exact census data used, its known shortcomings, if any, and any projections made from the data. At minimum, the NI must know the size of the population and the urban/rural population divide in each region in order to specify how to distribute population and PSU's in the first stage of sampling. National investigators should obtain this written data before they attempt to stratify the sample.

Once this data is obtained, the sample population (either 1200 or 2400) should be stratified, first by area (region/province) and then by residential locality (urban or rural). In each case, the proportion of the sample in each locality in each region should be the same as its proportion in the national population as indicated by the updated census figures.

Having stratified the sample, it is then possible to determine how many PSU's should be selected for the country as a whole, for each region, and for each urban or rural locality.

The total number of PSU's to be selected for the whole country is determined by calculating the maximum degree of clustering of interviews one can accept in any PSU. Because PSUs (which are usually geographically small EAs) tend to be socially homogenous we do not want to select too many people in any one place. Thus, the Afrobarometer has established a standard of no more than 8 interviews per PSU. For a sample size of 1200, the sample must therefore contain 150 PSUs/EAs (1200 divided by 8). For a sample size of 2400, there must be 300 PSUs/EAs.

These PSUs should then be allocated