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.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: Webpage with links to Excel files For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (revised 7/3/2019) , joined to SD, SPA, and CSA as of Dec. 2023.Data from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes/. Downloaded 1/9/2024.Primary RUCA Codes, 20101 Metropolitan area core: primary flow within an urbanized area (UA)2 Metropolitan area high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a UA3 Metropolitan area low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a UA4 Micropolitan area core: primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 10,000 to 49,999 (large UC)5 Micropolitan high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a large UC6 Micropolitan low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC7 Small town core: primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 2,500 to 9,999 (small UC)8 Small town high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a small UC9 Small town low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a small UC10 Rural areas: primary flow to a tract outside a UA or UC99 Not coded: Census tract has zero population and no rural-urban identifier informationSecondary RUCA Codes, 20101 Metropolitan area core: primary flow within an urbanized area (UA)1No additional code1.1Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a larger UA2 Metropolitan area high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a UA2No additional code2.1Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a larger UA3 Metropolitan area low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a UA3No additional code4 Micropolitan area core: primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 10,000 to 49,999 (large UC)4No additional code4.1Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA5 Micropolitan high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a large UC5No additional code5.1Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA6 Micropolitan low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC6No additional code7 Small town core: primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 2,500 to 9,999 (small UC)7No additional code7.1Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA7.2Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a large UC8 Small town high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a small UC8No additional code8.1Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA8.2Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a large UC9 Small town low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a small UC9No additional code10 Rural areas: primary flow to a tract outside a UA or UC10No additional code10.1Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA10.2Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a large UC10.3Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a small UC99 Not coded: Census tract has zero population and no rural-urban identifier informationData Sources:Population data for census tracts, by urban-rural components, 2010:U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, 2010. Summary File 1, FTP download: https://www.census.gov/census2000/sumfile1.htmlAssignment of census tracts to specific urban areas or to rural status was completed using ESRI's ArcMap software and Census Bureau shape files:U.S. Census Bureau. Tiger/Line Shapefiles, Census Tracts and Urban Areas, 2010: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography.htmlCensus tract commuting flows, 2006-2010:U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2006-2010 Five-year estimates. Special Tabulation: Census Transportation Planning Products, Part 3, Worker Home-to-Work Flow Tables. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/2006-2010_table_list/sheet04.cfmTract-to-tract commuting flow files were constructed from ACS data as part of a special tabulation for the Department of Transportation—the Census Transportation Planning Package. To derive estimates for small geographic units such as census tracts, information collected annually from over 3.5 million housing units was combined across 5 years (2006-2010). As with all survey data, ACS estimates are not exact because they are based on a sample. In general, the smaller the estimate, the larger the degree of uncertainty associated with it.

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 table presents the 2021 population counts for census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, and their population centres and rural areas.

Disclaimer: These data are updated by the author and are not an official product of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.This project provides two sets of migration estimates for the major US metro areas. The first series measures net migration of people to and from the urban neighborhoods of the metro areas. The second series covers all neighborhoods but breaks down net migration to other regions by four region types: (1) high-cost metros, (2) affordable, large metros, (3) midsized metros, and (4) small metros and rural areas. These series were introduced in a Cleveland Fed District Data Brief entitled “Urban and Regional Migration Estimates: Will Your City Recover from the Pandemic?"The migration estimates in this project are created with data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York/Equifax Consumer Credit Panel (CCP). The CCP is a 5 percent random sample of the credit histories maintained by Equifax. The CCP reports the census block of residence for over 10 million individuals each quarter. Each month, Equifax receives individuals’ addresses, along with reports of debt balances and payments, from creditors (mortgage lenders, credit card issuers, student loan servicers, etc.). An algorithm maintained by Equifax considers all of the addresses reported for an individual and identifies the individual’s most likely current address. Equifax anonymizes the data before they are added to the CCP, removing names, addresses, and Social Security numbers (SSNs). In lieu of mailing addresses, the census block of the address is added to the CCP. Equifax creates a unique, anonymous identifier to enable researchers to build individuals’ panels. The panel nature of the data allows us to observe when someone has migrated and is living in a census block different from the one they lived in at the end of the preceding quarter. For more details about the CCP and its use in measuring migration, see Lee and Van der Klaauw (2010) and DeWaard, Johnson and Whitaker (2019). DefinitionsMetropolitan areaThe metropolitan areas in these data are combined statistical areas. This is the most aggregate definition of metro areas, and it combines Washington DC with Baltimore, San Jose with San Francisco, Akron with Cleveland, etc. Metro areas are combinations of counties that are tightly linked by worker commutes and other economic activity. All counties outside of metropolitan areas are tracked as parts of a rural commuting zone (CZ). CZs are also groups of counties linked by commuting, but CZ definitions cover all counties, both metropolitan and non-metropolitan. High-cost metropolitan areasHigh-cost metro areas are those where the median list price for a house was more than $200 per square foot on average between April 2017 and April 2022. These areas include San Francisco-San Jose, New York, San Diego, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Miami, Sacramento, Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland, and Washington-Baltimore. Other Types of RegionsMetro areas with populations above 2 million and house price averages below $200 per square foot are categorized as affordable, large metros. Metro areas with populations between 500,000 and 2 million are categorized as mid-sized metros, regardless of house prices. All remaining counties are in the small metro and rural category.To obtain a metro area's total net migration, sum the four net migration values for the the four types of regions.Urban neighborhoodCensus tracts are designated as urban if they have a population density above 7,000 people per square mile. High density neighborhoods can support walkable retail districts and high-frequency public transportation. They are more likely to have the “street life” that people associate with living in an urban rather than a suburban area. The threshold of 7,000 people per square mile was selected because it was the average density in the largest US cities in the 1930 census. Before World War II, workplaces, shopping, schools and parks had to be accessible on foot. Tracts are also designated as urban if more than half of their housing units were built before WWII and they have a population density above 2,000 people per square mile. The lower population density threshold for the pre-war neighborhoods recognizes that many urban tracts have lost population since the 1960s. While the street grids usually remain, the area also needs su

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)

Dataset with microdata from the Spanish Agrarian Census for the Autonomous Communities of Aragón and Catalonia. It includes data on variables related to farms' location, size, focus on ecological production, and establishment manager characteristics such as age, sex, and educational attainment.

Unpublished data product not for circulation Persistent Poverty tracts*Persistent poverty area and enduring poverty area measures with reference year 2015-2019 are research measures only. The ERS offical measures are updated every ten years. The next updates will use 1960 through 2000 Decennial Census data and 2007-2011 and 2017-2021 5-year ACS estimates. The updates will take place following the Census Bureau release of the 2017-2021 estimates (anticipated December 2022).A reliability index is calculated for each poverty rate (PctPoor) derived using poverty count estimates and published margins of error from the 5-yr ACS. If the poverty rate estimate has low reliability (=3) AND the upper (PctPoor + derived MOE) or lower (PctPoor - derived MOE) bounds of the MOE adjusted poverty rate would change the poverty status of the estimate (high = 20.0% or more; extreme = 40.0% or more) then the county/tract type is coded as "N/A". If looking at metrics named "PerPov0711" and PerPov1519" ERS says: The official measure ending in 2007-11 included data from 1980. The research measure ending in 2015-19 drops 1980 and begins instead with 1990. There were huge differences in geographic coverage of census tracts and data quality between 1980 and 1990, namely "because tract geography wasn’t assigned to all areas of the country until the 1990 Decennial Census. Last date edited 9/1/2022Variable NamesVariable Labels and ValuesNotesGeographic VariablesGEO_ID_CTCensus download GEOID when downloading county and tract data togetherSTUSABState Postal AbbreviationfipsCounty FIPS code, in numericCountyNameArea Name (county, state)TractNameArea Name (tract, county, state)TractCensus Tract numberRegionCensus region numeric code 1 = Northeast 2 = Midwest 3 = South 4 = Westsubreg3ERS subregions 1 = Northeast and Great Lakes 2 = Eastern Metropolitan Belt 3 = Eastern and Interior Uplands 4 = Corn Belt 5 = Southeastern Coast 6 = Southern Coastal Plain 7 = Great Plains 8 = Rio Grande and Southwest 9 = West, Alaska and HawaiiMetNonmet2013Metro and nonmetro county code 0 = nonmetro county 1 = metro countyBeale2013ERS Rural-urban Continuum Code 2013 (counties) 1 = counties in metro area of 1 million population or more 2 = counties in metro area of 250,000 to 1 million population 3 = counties in metro area of fewer than 250,000 population 4 = urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent to a metro area 5 = urban population of 20,000 or more, not adjacent to a metro area 6 = urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, adjacent to a metro area 7 = urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not adjacent to a metro area 8 = completely rural or less than 2,500, adjacent to a metro area 9 = completely rural or less than 2,500, not adjacent to a metro areaRUCA_2010Rural Urban Commuting Areas, primary code (census tracts) 1 = Metropolitan area core: primary flow within an urbanized area (UA) 2 = Metropolitan area high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a UA 3 = Metropolitan area low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a UA 4 = Micropolitan area core: primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 10,000 to 49,999 (large UC) 5 = Micropolitan high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a large UC 6 = Micropolitan low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC 7 = Small town core: primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 2,500 to 9,999 (small UC) 8 = Small town high commuting: primary flow 30% or more to a small UC 9 = Small town low commuting: primary flow 10% to 30% to a small UC 10 = Rural areas: primary flow to a tract outside a UA or UC 99 = Not coded: Census tract has zero population and no rural-urban identifier informationBNA01Census tract represents block numbering areas; BNAs are small statistical subdivisions of a county for numbering and grouping blocks in nonmetropolitan counties where local committees have not established tracts. 0 = not a BNA tract 1 = BNA tractPoverty Areas MeasuresHiPov60Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 20.0% 1960 (counties only) -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor60 < 20.0% 1 = PctPoor60 >= 20.0%HiPov70Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 20.0% 1970 -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor70 < 20.0% 1 = PctPoor70 >= 20.0%HiPov80Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 20.0% 1980 -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor80 < 20.0% 1 = PctPoor80 >= 20.0%HiPov90Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 20.0% 1990 -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor90 < 20.0% 1 = PctPoor90 >= 20.0%HiPov00Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 20.0% 2000 -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor00 < 20.0% 1 = PctPoor00 >= 20.0%HiPov0711Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 20.0% 2007-11 ACS -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor0711 < 20.0% 1 = PctPoor0711 >= 20.0%HiPov1519Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 20.0% 2015-19 ACS -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor1519 < 20.0% 1 = PctPoor1519 >= 20.0%ExtPov60Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 40.0% 1960 (counties only) -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor60 < 40.0% 1 = PctPoor60 >= 40.0%ExtPov70Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 40.0% 1970 -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor70 < 40.0% 1 = PctPoor70 >= 40.0%ExtPov80Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 40.0% 1980 -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor80 < 40.0% 1 = PctPoor80 >= 40.0%ExtPov90Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 40.0% 1990 -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor90 < 40.0% 1 = PctPoor90 >= 40.0%ExtPov00Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 40.0% 2000 -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor00 < 40.0% 1 = PctPoor00 >= 40.0%ExtPov0711Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 40.0% 2007-11 ACS -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor0711 < 40.0% 1 = PctPoor0711 >= 40.0%ExtPov1519Poverty Rate greater than or equal to 40.0% 2015-19 ACS -1 = N/A 0 = PctPoor1519 < 40.0% 1 = PctPoor1519 >= 40.0%PerPov90Official ERS Measure: Persistent Poverty 1990: poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 (counties only) May not match previously published versions due to changes in geographic normalization procedures. -1 = N/A 0 = poverty rate not >= 20.0% in 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 1 = poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990PerPov00Official ERS Measure: Persistent Poverty 2000: poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000May not match previously published versions due to changes in geographic normalization procedures. -1 = N/A 0 = poverty rate not >= 20.0% in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 1 = poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000PerPov0711Official ERS Measure: Persistent Poverty 2007-11: poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2007-11May not match previously published versions due to changes in geographic normalization procedures and -1 = N/A application of reliability criteria. 0 = poverty rate not >= 20.0% in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2007-11 1 = poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2007-11PerPov1519Research Measure Only: Persistent Poverty 2015-19: poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1990, 2000, 2007-11, and 2015May not match previously published versions due to changes in geographic normalization procedures and -1 = N/A application of reliability criteria. 0 = poverty rate not >= 20.0% in 1990, 2000, 2007-11, and 2015-19 1 = poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1990, 2000, 2007-11, and 2015-19EndurePov0711Official ERS Measure: Enduring Poverty 2007-11: poverty rate >= 20.0% for at least 5 consecutive time periods up-to and including 2007-11 -1 = N/A 0 = Poverty Rate not >=20.0% in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2007-11 1 = poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2007-11 2 = poverty rate >=20.0% in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2007-11 (counties only)EndurePov1519Research Measure Only: Enduring Poverty 2015-19: poverty rate >= 20.0% for at least 5 consecutive time periods, up-to and including 2015-19 -1 = N/A 0 = Poverty Rate not >=20.0% in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2007-11, and 2015-19 1 = poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2007-11, and 2015-19 2 = poverty rate >= 20.0% in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2007-11, and 2015-19 3 = poverty rate >=20.0% in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2007-11, and 2015-19 (counties only)Additional Notes: *In the combined data tab each variable ends with a 'C' for county and a 'T' for tractThe spreadsheet was joined to Esri's Living Atlas Social Vulnerability Tract Data (CDC) and therefore contains the following information as well: ATSDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP) has created a tool to help emergency response planners and public health officials identify and map the communities that will most likely need support before, during, and after a hazardous event. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) uses U.S. Census data to determine the social vulnerability of every county and tract. CDC SVI ranks each county and tract on 15 social factors, including poverty, lack of vehicle access, and crowded housing, and groups them into four related themes:SocioeconomicHousing Composition and DisabilityMinority Status and LanguageHousing and TransportationThis feature layer visualizes the 2018 overall SVI for U.S. counties and tracts. Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) indicates the relative vulnerability of every U.S. county and tract.15 social factors grouped into four major themes | Index value calculated for each county for the 15 social factors, four major themes, and the overall rank

The functional urban area (FUA) classification identifies small urban areas and rural areas that are integrated with major, large, and medium urban areas to create FUAs.

Workplace address and usual residence address data from the 2018 Census of Population and Dwellings were used to identify satellite urban areas (1,000–4,999 residents), and rural statistical area 1s (SA1s) from which at least 40 percent of workers commuted to urban areas with more than 5,000 residents.

An FUA includes Urban rural (UR) 2018 urban areas, rural settlements and rural SA1s where there is: an urban core, one or more secondary urban cores, one or more satellite urban areas, and rural hinterland (rural settlements or rural SA1s).

The FUA indicator (IFUA) classifies UR2018 urban areas and rural SA1s according to their character within their FUA, e.g., urban core, satellite urban area. The information from the Stats NZ classification can be accessed using the classification tool Ariā.

The 53 FUAs are classified by population size. The urban core’s population rather than the entire FUA’s population is used to maintain consistency between the descriptions of UR2018 urban area and FUA type (TFUA).

FUAs that have more than 100,000 residents living in their urban core are known as metropolitan areas, while smaller FUAs are divided into large (core population 30,000–99,999), medium (core population 10,000–29,999), and small regional centres (core population 5,000–9,999).

Names are provided with and without tohutō/macrons. The name field without macrons is suffixed ‘ascii’.

For more detail, and classifications, please refer to Ariā.

Digital boundary data became freely available on 1 July 2007.

Abstract

The World Values Survey aims to attain a broad understanding of socio-political trends (i.e. perceptions, behaviour and expectations) among adults across the world.

Geographic coverage

National The sample was distributed as follows: 60% metropolitan (large cities with populations of 250 000+); 40% non-metropolitan (including cities, large towns, small towns, villages and rural areas)

Analysis unit

Individual

Universe

The sample included adults 16 years+ in South Africa

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample had to be representative of urban as well as rural populations. Roughly the distribution was as follows: - South Africa: 60% metropolitan (large cities with populations of 250 000+); 40% non-metropolitan (including cities, large towns, small towns, villages and rural areas).

A standard form of sampling instructions was sent to each agency to ensure uniformity in the sampling procedure. Markinor stratified the samples for each country by region, sex and community size. To this end, statistics and figures that were supplied to us by the agencies were used. However, we requested the agencies to revise these where necessary or where alternatives would be more effective. The agencies then supplied the street names for the urban starting points, and made suggestions for sampling procedures in rural areas where neither maps nor street names were available. From sample-point level, the respondent selection was done randomly according to a selection grid used by Markinor (the first two pages of the master questionnaire).

Substitution was permitted after three unsuccessful calls. Six interviews were conducted at each sample point. The male/female split was 50/50. The urban sample included all community sizes greater than 500 and the rural sample all community sizes less than 500. This is the definition of urban and rural used in South Africa.

Remarks about sampling: -Final numbers of clusters or sampling points: 500 -Sample unit from office sampling: Street Names

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The WVS questionnaire was translated from the English questionnaire by a specialist translator The translated questionnaire was pre-tested. The pre-tests were part of the general pilots. In total 20 pilots were conducted. The English questionnaire from the University of Michigan was used to make the WVS. Extra questions were added at the end of the questionnaire. Also, country specific questions were included at the end of the questionnaire, just before the demographics.The sample was designed to be representative of the entire adult population, i.e. 18 years and older, of your country. The lower age cut-off for the sample was 16 and there was not any upper age cut-off for the sample.

Cleaning operations

Some measures of coding reliability were employed. Each questionnaire is coded against the coding frame. A minimum of 10% of each coders work is checked to ensure consistency in interpretation. If any discrepancies in interpretation are World Values Survey (1999-2004) - South Africa 2001 v.2015.04.18 discovered, a 100% check is carried out on that particular coders work. Errors were corrected individually and automatically.

Sampling error estimates

The error margins for this survey can be calculated by taking the following factors into account: - all samples were random (as opposed to quota-controlled) - the sample size per country (or segment being analysed) - the substitution rate per country (or segment being analysed) - the rates were recorded on CARD 1; col. 805 of the questionnaire. From the substitution rate, the response rate can be calculated.

Small towns play a crucial role in bridging urban and rural territory systems. While numerous studies have identified the characteristics and causes of small town shrinkage (STS), there remains an unexplored perspective on the reasons for their shrinkage from the perspective of the rural-urban relationship. To address this research gap, we investigated the relationship between STS and rural-urban interaction (RUI) in China. We hypothesized that a negative relationship existed between the degree of STS and the intensity of RUI. Using geo-statistical methods, such as the multi-scale geographical weighted regression (MGWR) model, the hypothesis was tested using Henan Province in China as a case study. The results indicated that the phenomenon of STS was observed extensively across the study region, with a 59% geographical overlap between the high-value area of STS and the low-value area of urban-rural interaction. Three distinct sub-types of STS regions were identified: shrinking regions along geographical borders, shrinking regions adjacent to metropolitan areas, and shrinking regions in ecologically fragile areas. The factors influencing STS demonstrated spatial heterogeneity and multi-scale characteristics. The findings will improve our understanding of urban shrinkage from a multi-level perspective and offer policy makers guidance for the sustainable development of small towns based on local conditions.

In 2017, rates of death from unintentional falls in the U.S. were highest in small metro areas. Both rural and more urban areas of the U.S. saw increases in unintentional fall death rates between 2014 and 2017. Deaths from unintentional falling are more common among the elderly.

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and 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..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..Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, for 2010, the 2010 Census provides the official counts of the population and housing units for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns. For 2006 to 2009, the Population Estimates Program provides intercensal estimates of the population for the nation, states, and counties..Explanation of Symbols:.An ''**'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''-'' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''-'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''+'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''***'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''*****'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An ''N'' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An ''(X)'' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available..Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..While the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the December 2009 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions 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 definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..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 Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..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, 2014-2018 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..In 2016, changes were made to the languages and language categories presented in tables B16001, C16001, and B16002. For more information, see: .2016 Language Data User note....Geographical restrictions have been applied to Table B16001 - LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER for the 5-year data estimates. These restrictions are in place to protect data privacy for the speakers of smaller languages. Geographic areas published for the 5-year B16001 table include: Nation (010), States (040), Metropolitan Statistical Area-Metropolitan Divisions (314), Combined Statistical Areas (330), Congressional Districts (500), and Public Use Microdata Sample Areas (PUMAs) (795). For more information on these geographical delineations, see the .Metropolitan Statistical Area Reference Files... County and tract-level data are no longer available for table B16001; for specific language data for these smaller geographies, please use table C16001. Additional languages are also available in the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), at the State and Public Use Microdata Sample Area (PUMA) levels of geography..While the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions 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 definitions 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:..An "**" entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate..An "-" entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution, or the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself..An "-" following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An "+" following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An "***" entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An "*****" entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An "N" entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An "(X)" means that the estimate is not applicable or not available....

Prior to 2016, the U.S. Department of Education previously relied on legacy geographic classification framework to support the needs of the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), an initiative that targets resources and provides additional administrative flexibility for small school systems that serve rural areas. REAP adopted the NCES locale framework when the program was reauthorized in 2015, but the EDGE program retains the REAP locale boundary layer as a resource for research. The REAP locale framework classified all territory in the U.S. into four types of areas -- City, Urban Fringe, Town, and Rural. Each area is divided into two subtypes based on population size (in the case of City, Urban Fringe, and Town assignments) and proximity to metropolitan areas (in the case of Rural assignments).

Over 909 million people in India lived in rural areas in 2023, a decrease from 2022. Urban India, although far behind with over 508 million people, had a higher year-on-year growth rate during the measured period.

Small towns play a crucial role in bridging urban and rural territory systems. While numerous studies have identified the characteristics and causes of small town shrinkage (STS), there remains an unexplored perspective on the reasons for their shrinkage from the perspective of the rural-urban relationship. To address this research gap, we investigated the relationship between STS and rural-urban interaction (RUI) in China. We hypothesized that a negative relationship existed between the degree of STS and the intensity of RUI. Using geo-statistical methods, such as the multi-scale geographical weighted regression (MGWR) model, the hypothesis was tested using Henan Province in China as a case study. The results indicated that the phenomenon of STS was observed extensively across the study region, with a 59% geographical overlap between the high-value area of STS and the low-value area of urban-rural interaction. Three distinct sub-types of STS regions were identified: shrinking regions along geographical borders, shrinking regions adjacent to metropolitan areas, and shrinking regions in ecologically fragile areas. The factors influencing STS demonstrated spatial heterogeneity and multi-scale characteristics. The findings will improve our understanding of urban shrinkage from a multi-level perspective and offer policy makers guidance for the sustainable development of small towns based on local conditions.

The functional urban area (FUA) classification identifies small urban areas and rural areas that are integrated with major, large, and medium urban areas to create FUAs. This dataset is clipped to the coastline. This clipped version has been created for map creation/cartographic purposes and so does not fully represent the official full extent boundaries.

Workplace address and usual residence address data from the 2018 Census of Population and Dwellings were used to identify satellite urban areas (1,000–4,999 residents), and rural statistical area 1s (SA1s) from which at least 40 percent of workers commuted to urban areas with more than 5,000 residents.

An FUA includes Urban rural (UR) 2018 urban areas, rural settlements and rural SA1s where there is: an urban core, one or more secondary urban cores, one or more satellite urban areas, and rural hinterland (rural settlements or rural SA1s).

The FUA indicator (IFUA) classifies UR2018 urban areas and rural SA1s according to their character within their FUA, e.g., urban core, satellite urban area. The information from the Stats NZ classification can be accessed using the classification tool Ariā.

The 53 FUAs are classified by population size. The urban core’s population rather than the entire FUA’s population is used to maintain consistency between the descriptions of UR2018 urban area and FUA type (TFUA).

FUAs that have more than 100,000 residents living in their urban core are known as metropolitan areas, while smaller FUAs are divided into large (core population 30,000–99,999), medium (core population 10,000–29,999), and small regional centres (core population 5,000–9,999).

Names are provided with and without tohutō/macrons. The name field without macrons is suffixed ‘ascii’.

For more detail, and classifications, please refer to Ariā.

Digital boundary data became freely available on 1 July 2007.

This Alberta Official Statistic describes the percentage of the population that reported having an Aboriginal identity in 2011. The population is divided into larger urban centres and rural and small town areas. Within the larger urban centres, the population is divided between Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA) and two different sizes of Census Agglomerations (CA). Within rural and small town Alberta, the population is divided into four categories with each category consecutively representing less integration with urban economies. The four categories are called Metropolitan Influence Zones (MIZ) and capture urban integration by measuring the percentage of the working population commuting to urban centers. The categories are: Strong MIZ (where 30% to 49% of the workforce commutes to an urban core) Moderate MIZ (where 5% to 29% commute to an urban core) Weak MIZ (where 1% to 4% commute to an urban core) No MIZ (where there are no residents commuting to an urban core)

This Alberta Official Statistic describes the percentage of the population that reported having an Aboriginal identity in 2011. The population is divided into larger urban centres and rural and small town areas. Within the larger urban centres, the population is divided between Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA) and two different sizes of Census Agglomerations (CA). Within rural and small town Alberta, the population is divided into four categories with each category consecutively representing less integration with urban economies. The four categories are called Metropolitan Influence Zones (MIZ) and capture urban integration by measuring the percentage of the working population commuting to urban centers. The categories are: Strong MIZ (where 30% to 49% of the workforce commutes to an urban core) Moderate MIZ (where 5% to 29% commute to an urban core) Weak MIZ (where 1% to 4% commute to an urban core) No MIZ (where there are no residents commuting to an urban core)