In 2025, the degree of urbanization worldwide was at 58 percent. North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean were the regions with the highest level of urbanization, with over four-fifths of the population residing in urban areas. The degree of urbanization defines the share of the population living in areas defined as "cities". On the other hand, less than half of Africa's population lives in urban settlements. Globally, China accounts for over one-quarter of the built-up areas of more than 500,000 inhabitants. The definition of a city differs across various world regions - some countries count settlements with 100 houses or more as urban, while others only include the capital of a country or provincial capitals in their count. Largest agglomerations worldwideThough North America is the most urbanized continent, no U.S. city was among the top ten urban agglomerations worldwide in 2023. Tokyo-Yokohama in Japan was the largest urban area in the world that year, with 37.7 million inhabitants. New York ranked 13th, with 21.4 million inhabitants. Eight of the 10 most populous cities are located in Asia. ConnectivityIt may be hard to imagine how the reality will look in 2050, with 70 percent of the global population living in cities, but some statistics illustrate the ways urban living differs from suburban and rural living. American urbanites may lead more “connected” (i.e., internet-connected) lives than their rural and/or suburban counterparts. As of 2021, around 89 percent of people living in urban areas owned a smartphone. Internet usage was also higher in cities than in rural areas. On the other hand, rural areas always have, and always will, attract those who want to escape the rush of the city.

Content

Data was pulled from a table in the following Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population I used Microsoft Excel's PowerQuery function to pull the table from Wikipedia. Lists each city, its rank (based on 2020 population), some data on its area, and population in both 2020 and 2010.

Banner image source: https://unsplash.com/photos/wh-7GeXxItI

In 2023, the metropolitan area of New York-Newark-Jersey City had the biggest population in the United States. Based on annual estimates from the census, the metropolitan area had around 19.5 million inhabitants, which was a slight decrease from the previous year. The Los Angeles and Chicago metro areas rounded out the top three. What is a metropolitan statistical area? In general, a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is a core urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 inhabitants – the smallest MSA is Carson City, with an estimated population of nearly 56,000. The urban area is made bigger by adjacent communities that are socially and economically linked to the center. MSAs are particularly helpful in tracking demographic change over time in large communities and allow officials to see where the largest pockets of inhabitants are in the country. How many MSAs are in the United States? There were 421 metropolitan statistical areas across the U.S. as of July 2021. The largest city in each MSA is designated the principal city and will be the first name in the title. An additional two cities can be added to the title, and these will be listed in population order based on the most recent census. So, in the example of New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York has the highest population, while Jersey City has the lowest. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts an official population count every ten years, and the new count is expected to be announced by the end of 2030.

As of 2025, Tokyo-Yokohama in Japan was the largest world urban agglomeration, with 37 million people living there. Delhi ranked second with more than 34 million, with Shanghai in third with more than 30 million inhabitants.

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.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Metropolitan Divisions subdivide a Metropolitan Statistical Area containing a single core urban area that has a population of at least 2.5 million to form smaller groupings of counties or equivalent entities. Not all Metropolitan Statistical Areas with urban areas of this size will contain Metropolitan Divisions. Metropolitan Division are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of one or more main counties or equivalent entities that represent an employment center or centers, plus adjacent counties associated with the main county or counties through commuting ties. Because Metropolitan Divisions represent subdivisions of larger Metropolitan Statistical Areas, it is not appropriate to rank or compare Metropolitan Divisions with Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. The Metropolitan Divisions boundaries are those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2017.

United States US: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban Population data was reported at 7.020 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 7.065 % for 2016. United States US: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban Population data is updated yearly, averaging 8.675 % from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.200 % in 1960 and a record low of 7.020 % in 2017. United States US: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban 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.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Population in largest city is the percentage of a country's urban population living in that country's largest metropolitan area.; ; United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects.; Weighted average;

The Inrix Inc. study reveals that the United States (U.S.) is ranked as the most congested developed country in the world, with drivers spending an average of 42 hours a year in traffic during peak hours. According to this study, the direct and indirect costs of congestion to all U.S. drivers amounts to nearly $300 billion in 2016, an average of $1,400 per driver.U.S. cities dominated the top 10 most congested cities globally, with Los Angeles (first), New York (third), San Francisco (fourth), Atlanta (eighth), and Miami (10th) each dealing with an economic drain on the city upwards of $2.5 billion caused by traffic congestion. Los Angeles commuters spent an average of 104 hours last year in traffic jams during peak congestion hours more than any other city in the world. This contributed to congestion costing drivers in Los Angeles $2,408 each and the city as a whole $9.6 billion from direct and indirect costs. Direct costs relate to the value of fuel and time wasted, and indirect costs refer to freight and business fees from company vehicles idling in traffic, which are passed on to households through higher prices.

Our goal in this paper is to examine whether there are similar patterns in the distribution of tree canopy by Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) graded neighborhoods across 37 cities. A pre-print of the paper can be found here: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/97zcs

This data packages contains:

1. City-specific file geodatabases with features classes of the HOLC polygons obtained from the Mapping Inequality Project https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/, and tables summarizing tree canopy, and in some cases other land cover classes.

2. An *.R script that replicates all of the analyses, graphs, and tables in the paper. Other double checks, exploratory, and miscellaneous outputs are created by the script too as a bonus. Everything in the paper can be done with the script; additional work outputs are also created.

3. A *.csv file containing city, the HOLC grade, and the percent tree canopy cover. This can be used to create the main findings of the paper and this flat file is provided as an alternative to running the R script to extract information from the geodatabases, combine, and analyze them. The intention is that this file is more widely accessible; the underlying information is the same.

   Redlining was a racially discriminatory housing policy established by the federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) during the 1930s. For decades, redlining limited access to homeownership and wealth creation among racial minorities, contributing to a host of adverse social outcomes, including high unemployment, poverty, and residential vacancy, that persist today. While the multigenerational socioeconomic impacts of redlining are increasingly understood, the impacts on urban environments and ecosystems remains unclear. To begin to address this gap, we investigated how the HOLC policy administered 80 years ago may relate to present-day tree canopy at the neighborhood level. Urban trees provide many ecosystem services, mitigate the urban heat island effect, and may improve quality of life in cities. In our prior research in Baltimore, MD, we discovered that redlining policy influenced the location and allocation of trees and parks. Our analysis of 37 metropolitan areas here shows that areas formerly graded D, which were mostly inhabited by racial and ethnic minorities, have on average ~23% tree canopy cover today. Areas formerly graded A, characterized by U.S.-born white populations living in newer housing stock, had nearly twice as much tree canopy (~43%). Results are consistent across small and large metropolitan regions. The ranking system used by Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to assess loan risk in the 1930s parallels the rank order of average percent tree canopy cover today.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. New England City and Town Area (NECTA) Divisions subdivide a NECTA containing a single core urban area that has a population of at least 2.5 million to form smaller groupings of cities and towns. NECTA Divisions are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of a main city or town that represents an employment center, plus adjacent cities and towns associated with the main city or town through commuting ties. Each NECTA Division must contain a total population of 100,000 or more. Because NECTA Divisions represent subdivisions of larger NECTAs, it is not appropriate to rank or compare NECTA Divisions with NECTAs. Not all NECTAs with urban areas of this size will contain NECTA Divisions. The NECTA Divisions boundaries are those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2020.

The 2020 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files.

New England City and Town Area (NECTA) Divisions subdivide a NECTA containing a single core urban area that has a population of at least 2.5 million to form smaller groupings of cities and towns. NECTA Divisions are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of a main city or town that represents an employment center, plus adjacent cities and towns associated with the main city or town through commuting ties. Each NECTA Division must contain a total population of 100,000 or more. Because NECTA Divisions represent subdivisions of larger NECTAs, it is not appropriate to rank or compare NECTA Divisions with NECTAs. Not all NECTAs with urban areas of this size will contain NECTA Divisions.

The generalized boundaries in this file are based on those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2020.

This statistic shows the population growth rate of the top twenty largest urban agglomerations in the United States from 2000 to 2030. Between 2025 and 2030, the average annual population growth rate of the New York-Newark agglomeration is projected to be roughly **** percent.

This statistic shows the population of the top twenty largest urban agglomerations in the United States from 2018 to 2035. By 2035, the population of the New York-Newark agglomeration is projected to be roughly **** million people.

Reason for Selection Protected natural areas help foster a conservation ethic by providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and also support ecosystem services like offsetting heat island effects (Greene and Millward 2017, Simpson 1998), water filtration, stormwater retention, and more (Hoover and Hopton 2019). In addition, parks, greenspace, and greenways can help improve physical and psychological health in communities (Gies 2006). However, parks are not equitably distributed within easy walking distance for everyone. It also complements the urban park size indicator by capturing the value of potential new parks. Input Data

  The Trust for Public Land (TPL) ParkServe database, accessed 8-8-2021: Park priority areas (ParkServe_ParkPriorityAreas_08062021) 
    From the TPL ParkServe documentation:

The ParkServe database maintains an inventory of parks for every urban area in the U.S., including Puerto Rico. This includes all incorporated and Census-designated places that lie within any of the country’s 3,000+ census-designated urban areas. All populated areas in a city that fall outside of a 10-minute walk service area are assigned a level of park priority, based on a comprehensive index of six equally weighted demographic and environmental metrics:Population densityDensity of low-income households – which are defined as households with income less than 75 percent of the urban area median household incomeDensity of people of colorCommunity health – a combined index based on the rate of poor mental health and low physical activity from the 2020 CDC PLACES census tract datasetUrban heat islands – surface temperature at least 1.25o greater than city mean surface temperature from The Trust for Public Land, based on Landsat 8 satellite imageryPollution burden - Air toxics respiratory hazard index from 2020 EPA EJScreen The 10-minute walkFor each park, we create a 10-minute walkable service area using a nationwide walkable road network dataset provided by Esri. The analysis identifies physical barriers such as highways, train tracks, and rivers without bridges and chooses routes without barriers.

  CDC Social Vulnerability Index 2018: RPL_Themes 

Social vulnerability refers to the capacity for a person or group to “anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact” of a natural or anthropogenic disaster such as extreme weather events, oil spills, earthquakes, and fires. Socially vulnerable populations are more likely to be disproportionately affected by emergencies (Wolkin et al. 2018).

In this indicator, we use the “RPL_THEMES” attribute from the Social Vulnerability Index, described here. “The Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program (GRASP) at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry developed the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). The SVI is a dataset intended to help state, local, and tribal disaster management officials identify where the most socially vulnerable populations occur (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] 2018)” (Flanagan et al. 2018).

“The SVI database is regularly updated and includes 15 census variables (ATSDR 2018). Each census variable was ranked from highest to lowest vulnerability across all census tracts in the nation with a nonzero population. A percentile rank was calculated for each census tract for each variable. The variables were then grouped among four themes.... A tract-level percentile rank was also calculated for each of the four themes. Finally, an overall percentile rank for each tract as the sum of all variable rankings was calculated. This process of percentile ranking was then repeated for the individual states” (Flanagan et al. 2018).

Base Blueprint 2022 extent
Southeast Blueprint 2023 extent

Mapping Steps

Convert the ParkServe park priority areas layer to a raster using the ParkRank field. Note: The ParkRank scores are calculated using metrics classified relative to each city. Each city contains park rank values that range from 1-3. For the purposes of this indicator, we chose to target potential park areas to improve equity. Because the ParkRank scores are relative for each city, a high score in one city is not necessarily comparable to a high score from another city. In an effort to try to bring more equity into this indicator, we also use the CDC Social Vulnerability Index to narrow down the results.
Reclassify the ParkServe raster to make NoData values 0. 
Convert the SVI layer from vector to raster based on the “RPL_Themes” field. 
To limit the ParkRank layer to areas with high SVI scores, first identify census tracts with an “RPL_Themes” field value >0.65. Make a new raster that assigns a value of 1 to census tracts that score >0.65, and a value of 0 to everything else. Take the resulting raster times the ParkRank layer.
Reclassify this raster into the 4 classes seen in the final indicator below.
Clip to the spatial extent of Base Blueprint 2022.
As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2023. 

Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in the Southeast Blueprint Data Download under > 6_Code. Final indicator values Indicator values are assigned as follows: 3 = Very high priority for a new park that would create nearby equitable access

2 = High priority for a new park that would create nearby equitable access1 = Moderate priority for a new park that would create nearby equitable access 0 = Not identified as a priority for a new park that would create nearby equitable access (within urban areas) Known Issues

This indicator could overestimate park need in areas where existing parks are missing from the ParkServe database. TPL regularly updates ParkServe to incorporate the best available park data. If you notice missing parks or errors in the park boundaries or attributes, you can submit corrections through the ParkReviewer tool or by contacting TPL staff.
Within a given area of high park need, the number of people served by the creation of a new park depends on its size and how centrally located it is. This indicator does not account for this variability. Similarly, while creating a new park just outside an area of high park need would create access for some people on the edge, the indicator does not capture the benefits of new parks immediately adjacent to high-need areas. For a more granular analysis of new park benefits, ParkServe’s ParkEvaluator tool allows you to draw a new park, view its resulting 10-minute walk service area, and calculate who would benefit.
Beyond considering distance to a park and whether it is open to the public, this indicator does not account for other factors that might limit park access, such as park amenities or public safety. The TPL analysis excludes private or exclusive parks that restrict access to only certain individuals (e.g., parks in gated communities, fee-based sites). The TPL data includes a wide variety of parks, trails, and open space as long as there is no barrier to entry for any portion of the population.
The indicator does not incorporate inequities in access to larger versus smaller parks. In predicting where new parks would benefit nearby people who currently lack access, this indicator treats all existing parks equally.
This indicator identifies areas where parks are needed, but does not consider whether a site is available to become a park. We included areas of low intensity development in order to capture vacant lots, which can serve as new park opportunities. However, as a result, this indicator also captures some areas that are already used for another purpose (e.g., houses, cemeteries, and businesses) and are unlikely to become parks. In future updates, we would like to use spatial data depicting vacant lots to identify more feasible park opportunities.
This indicator underestimates places in rural areas where many people within a socially vulnerable census tract would benefit from a new park. ParkServe covers incorporated and Census-designated places within census-designated urban areas, which leaves out many rural areas. We acknowledge that there are still highly socially vulnerable communities in rural areas that would benefit from the development of new parks. However, based on the source data, we were not able to capture those places in this version of the indicator. 

Other Things to Keep in MindThe zero values in this indicator contain three distinct types of areas that we were unable to distinguish between in the legend: 1) Areas that are not in a community analyzed by ParkServe (ParkServe covers incorporated and Census-designated places within census-designated urban areas); 2) Areas in a community analyzed by ParkServe that were not identified as a priority; 3) Areas that ParkServe identifies as a priority but do not meet the SVI threshold used to represent areas in most need of improved equitable access.This indicator only includes park priority areas that fall within the 65th percentile or above from the Social Vulnerability Index. We did not perform outreach to community leaders or community-led organizations for feedback on this threshold. This indicator is intended to generally help identify potential parks that can increase equitable access but should not be solely used to inform the creation of new parks. As the social equity component relies on information summarized by census tract, it should only be used in conjunction with local knowledge and in discussion with local communities (NRPA 2021, Manuel-Navarete et al. 2004). Disclaimer: Comparing with Older Indicator Versions There are numerous problems with using Southeast Blueprint indicators for change analysis. Please consult Blueprint staff if you would like to do this (email hilary_morris@fws.gov). Literature Cited Centers for

This survey of minority groups was part of a larger project to investigate the patterns, predictors, and consequences of midlife development in the areas of physical health, psychological well-being, and social responsibility. Conducted in Chicago and New York City, the survey was designed to assess the well-being of middle-aged, urban, ethnic minority adults living in both hyper-segregated neighborhoods and in areas with lower concentrations of minorities. Respondents' views were sought on issues relevant to quality of life, including health, childhood and family background, religion, race and ethnicity, personal beliefs, work experiences, marital and close relationships, financial situation, children, community involvement, and neighborhood characteristics. Questions on health explored the respondents' physical and emotional well-being, past and future attitudes toward health, physical limitations, energy level and appetite, amount of time spent worrying about health, and physical reactions to those worries. Questions about childhood and family background elicited information on family structure, the role of the parents with regard to child rearing, parental education, employment status, and supervisory responsibilities at work, the family financial situation including experiences with the welfare system, relationships with siblings, and whether as a child the respondent slept in the same bed as a parent or adult relative. Questions on religion covered religious preference, whether it is good to explore different religious teachings, and the role of religion in daily decision-making. Questions about race and ethnicity investigated respondents' backgrounds and experiences as minorities, including whether respondents preferred to be with people of the same racial group, how important they thought it was to marry within one's racial or ethnic group, citizenship, reasons for moving to the United States and the challenges faced since their arrival, their native language, how they would rate the work ethic of certain ethnic groups, their views on race relations, and their experiences with discrimination. Questions on personal beliefs probed for respondents' satisfaction with life and confidence in their opinions. Respondents were asked whether they had control over changing their life or their personality, and what age they viewed as the ideal age. They also rated people in their late 20s in the areas of physical health, contribution to the welfare and well-being of others, marriage and close relationships, relationships with their children, work situation, and financial situation. Questions on work experiences covered respondents' employment status, employment history, future employment goals, number of hours worked weekly, number of nights away from home due to work, exposure to the risk of accident or injury, relationships with coworkers and supervisors, work-related stress, and experience with discrimination in the workplace. A series of questions was posed on marriage and close relationships, including marital status, quality and length of relationships, whether the respondent had control over his or her relationships, and spouse/partner's education, physical and mental health, employment status, and work schedule. Questions on finance explored respondents' financial situation, financial planning, household income, retirement plans, insurance coverage, and whether the household had enough money. Questions on children included the number of children in the household, quality of respondents' relationships with their children, prospects for their children's future, child care coverage, and whether respondents had changed their work schedules to accommodate a child's illness. Additional topics focused on children's identification with their culture, their relationships with friends of different backgrounds, and their experiences with racism. Community involvement was another area of investigation, with items on respondents' role in child-rearing, participation on a jury, voting behavior, involvement in charitable organizations, volunteer experiences, whether they made monetary or clothing donations, and experiences living in an institutional setting or being homeless. Respondents were also queried about their neighborhoods, with items on neighborhood problems including racism, vandalism, crime, drugs, poor schools, teenag

The 20 most populous MSAs in 2008 ranked by their deviation from the scaling law.

In 2025, approximately 23 million people lived in the São Paulo metropolitan area, making it the biggest in Latin America and the Caribbean and the sixth most populated in the world. The homonymous state of São Paulo was also the most populous federal entity in the country. The second place for the region was Mexico City with 22.75 million inhabitants. Brazil's cities Brazil is home to two large metropolises, only counting the population within the city limits, São Paulo had approximately 11.45 million inhabitants, and Rio de Janeiro around 6.21 million inhabitants. It also contains a number of smaller, but well known cities such as Brasília, Salvador, Belo Horizonte and many others, which report between 2 and 3 million inhabitants each. As a result, the country's population is primarily urban, with nearly 88 percent of inhabitants living in cities. Mexico City Mexico City's metropolitan area ranks sevenths in the ranking of most populated cities in the world. Founded over the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan in 1521 after the Spanish conquest as the capital of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the city still stands as one of the most important in Latin America. Nevertheless, the preeminent economic, political, and cultural position of Mexico City has not prevented the metropolis from suffering the problems affecting the rest of the country, namely, inequality and violence. Only in 2023, the city registered a crime incidence of 52,723 reported cases for every 100,000 inhabitants and around 24 percent of the population lived under the poverty line.

Graph and download economic data for Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Rent of Primary Residence in U.S. City Average (CUUR0000SEHA) from Dec 1914 to Jun 2025 about primary, rent, urban, consumer, CPI, inflation, price index, indexes, price, and USA.

A dataset listing Illinois cities by population for 2024.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. New England City and Town Area (NECTA) Divisions subdivide a NECTA containing a single core urban area that has a population of at least 2.5 million to form smaller groupings of cities and towns. NECTA Divisions are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of a main city or town that represents an employment center, plus adjacent cities and towns associated with the main city or town through commuting ties. Each NECTA Division must contain a total population of 100,000 or more. Because NECTA Divisions represent subdivisions of larger NECTAs, it is not appropriate to rank or compare NECTA Divisions with NECTAs. Not all NECTAs with urban areas of this size will contain NECTA Divisions. The NECTA Divisions boundaries are those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census and published in 2013.