According to the results of a survey on customer experience (CX) among businesses conducted in the United States in 2021, the main challenge affecting data analysis capability for CX is the lack of reliability and integrity of available data. Data security followed, being chosen by almost 46 percent of the respondents.

During a survey conducted among TV marketers in the United States and released in May 2023, the main challenge of merging linear and digital data was identified by 53 percent of respondents with the lack of common metrics across channels. The creation of a holistic framework for planning and measurement was mentioned by 41 percent of respondents, while 40 percent cited data-sharing restrictions by walled gardens.

United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Survey High: Competit'n frm Big Bus data was reported at 14.000 % in Mar 2025. This stayed constant from the previous number of 14.000 % for Feb 2025. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Survey High: Competit'n frm Big Bus data is updated monthly, averaging 14.000 % from Jan 2014 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 131 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 14.000 % in Mar 2025 and a record low of 14.000 % in Mar 2025. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Survey High: Competit'n frm Big Bus data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Federation of Independent Business. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.S042: NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism. [COVID-19-IMPACT]

This study is part of a quadrennial series designed to investigate the opinions and attitudes of the general public on matters related to foreign policy, and to define the parameters of public opinion within which decision-makers must operate. This public opinion study of the United States focused on respondents' opinions of the United States' leadership role in the world and the challenges the country faces domestically and internationally. The survey covered the following international topics: relations with other countries, role in foreign affairs, possible threats to vital interests in the next ten years, foreign policy goals, benefits or drawbacks of globalization, situations that might justify the use of United States troops in other parts of the world, the number and location of United States military bases overseas, respondent feelings toward people of other countries, opinions on the influence of other countries in the world and how much influence those countries should have, whether there should be a global regulating body to prevent economic instability, international trade, United States participation in potential treaties, the United States' role in the United Nations and NATO, respondent opinions on international institutions and regulating bodies such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization, whether the United States will continue to be the world's leading power in the next 50 years, democracy in the Middle East and South Korea, the role of the United Nations Security Council, which side the United States should take in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what measures should be taken to deal with Iran's nuclear program, the military effort in Afghanistan, opinions on efforts to combat terrorism and the use of torture to extract information from prisoners, whether the respondent favors or opposes the government selling military equipment to other nations and using nuclear weapons in various circumstances, the economic development of China, and the conflict between North and South Korea. Domestic issues included economic prospects for American children when they become adults, funding for government programs, the fairness of the current distribution of income in the United States, the role of government, whether the government can be trusted to do what is right, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, United States' dependence on foreign energy sources, drilling for oil and natural gas off the coast of the United States, and relations with Mexico including such issues as the ongoing drug war, as well as immigration and immigration reform. Demographic and other background information included age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, left-right political self-placement, political affiliation, employment status, highest level of education, and religious preference. Also included are household size and composition, whether the respondent is head of household, household income, housing type, ownership status of living quarters, household Internet access, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status, and region and state of residence.

Reporting of new Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, data have been gathered through a robust process with the following steps:

• A CDC data team reviews and validates the information obtained from jurisdictions’ state and local websites via an overnight data review process.
• If more than one official county data source exists, CDC uses a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source, and takes the highest case and death counts respectively, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• CDC compiles these data and posts the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data is aggregated to obtain state and territory specific totals.

This process is collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provide the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. CDC may retrospectively update counts to correct data quality issues.

Methodology Changes Several differences exist between the current, weekly-updated dataset and the archived version:

• Source: The current Weekly-Updated Version is based on county-level aggregate count data, while the Archived Version is based on State-level aggregate count data.
• Confirmed/Probable Cases/Death breakdown:  While the probable cases and deaths are included in the total case and total death counts in both versions (if applicable), they were reported separately from the confirmed cases and deaths by jurisdiction in the Archived Version.  In the current Weekly-Updated Version, the counts by jurisdiction are not reported by confirmed or probable status (See Confirmed and Probable Counts section for more detail).
• Time Series Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version contains weekly time series data (i.e., one record per week per jurisdiction), while the Archived Version contains daily time series data (i.e., one record per day per jurisdiction).
• Update Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version is updated weekly, while the Archived Version was updated twice daily up to October 20, 2022.

Important note: The counts reflected during a given time period in this dataset may not match the counts reflected for the same time period in the archived dataset noted above. Discrepancies may exist due to differences between county and state COVID-19 case surveillance and reconciliation efforts.

Confirmed and Probable Counts In this dataset, counts by jurisdiction are not displayed by confirmed or probable status. Instead, confirmed and probable cases and deaths are included in the Total Cases and Total Deaths columns, when available. Not all jurisdictions report probable cases and deaths to CDC.* Confirmed and probable case definition criteria are described here:

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (ymaws.com).

Deaths CDC reports death data on other sections of the website: CDC COVID Data Tracker: Home, CDC COVID Data Tracker: Cases, Deaths, and Testing, and NCHS Provisional Death Counts. Information presented on the COVID Data Tracker pages is based on the same source (total case counts) as the present dataset; however, NCHS Death Counts are based on death certificates that use information reported by physicians, medical examiners, or coroners in the cause-of-death section of each certificate. Data from each of these pages are considered provisional (not complete and pending verification) and are therefore subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.

Number of Jurisdictions Reporting There are currently 60 public health jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands as well as three independent countries in compacts of free association with the United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. New York State’s reported case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they separately report nationally notifiable conditions to CDC.

CDC COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths, available by state and by county. These and other data on COVID-19 are available from multiple public locations, such as:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/surveillance-data-analytics.html

Additional COVID-19 public use datasets, include line-level (patient-level) data, are available at: https://data.cdc.gov/browse?tags=covid-19.

Archived Data Notes:

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases and deaths among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case and death counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases and deaths. 

November 17, 2022: Two new columns, weekly historic cases and weekly historic deaths, were added to this dataset on November 17, 2022. These columns reflect case and death counts that were reported that week but were historical in nature and not reflective of the current burden within the jurisdiction. These historical cases and deaths are not included in the new weekly case and new weekly death columns; however, they are reflected in the cumulative totals provided for each jurisdiction. These data are used to account for artificial increases in case and death totals due to batched reporting of historical data.

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the data released on December 1, 2022.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case and death data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case and death metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties (Livingston and Washtenaw) were higher than expected in the January 19, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases being reported this week, aggregate case and death counts in Charlotte County and Sarasota County, Florida, will appear higher than expected in the January 26, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on January 26, 2023.

February 2, 2023: As of the data collection deadline, CDC observed an abnormally large increase in aggregate COVID-19 cases and deaths reported for Washington State. In response, totals for new cases and new deaths released on February 2, 2023, have been displayed as zero at the state level until the issue is addressed with state officials. CDC is working with state officials to address the issue.

February 2, 2023: Due to a decrease reported in cumulative case counts by Wyoming, case rates will be reported as 0 in the February 2, 2023, weekly release. CDC is working with state officials to verify the data submitted.

February 16, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Utah’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on February 16, 2023. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected and should be interpreted with caution.

February 16, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence change, Maine’s

The U.S. Census defines Asian Americans as individuals having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1997). As a broad racial category, Asian Americans are the fastest-growing minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The growth rate of 42.9% in Asian Americans between 2000 and 2010 is phenomenal given that the corresponding figure for the U.S. total population is only 9.3% (see Figure 1). Currently, Asian Americans make up 5.6% of the total U.S. population and are projected to reach 10% by 2050. It is particularly notable that Asians have recently overtaken Hispanics as the largest group of new immigrants to the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2015). The rapid growth rate and unique challenges as a new immigrant group call for a better understanding of the social and health needs of the Asian American population.

Unemployment Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 4.20 percent in May. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The primary objective of this study was to formulate evidence-based lessons on recruitment, retention, and managing workforce profiles in large, United States police departments. The research team conducted a national survey of all United States municipal police agencies that had at least 300 sworn officers and were listed in the 2007 National Directory of Law Enforcement Administrators. The survey instrument was developed based on the research team's experience in working with large personnel systems, instruments used in previous police staffing surveys, and discussions with police practitioners. The research team distributed the initial surveys on February 27, 2008. To ensure an acceptable response rate, the principal investigators developed a comprehensive nonresponse protocol, provided ample field time for departments to compile information and respond, and provided significant one-on-one technical assistance to agencies as they completed the survey. In all, the surveys were in the field for 38 weeks. Respondents were asked to consult their agency's records in order to provide information about their agency's experience with recruiting, hiring, and retaining officers for 2006 and 2007. Of the 146 departments contacted, 107 completed the survey. The police recruitment and retention survey data were supplemented with data on each jurisdiction from the American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports. The dataset contains a total of 535 variables pertaining to recruitment, hiring, union activity, compensation rates, promotion, retirement, and attrition. Many of these variables are available by rank, sex and race.

According to a survey conducted among stakeholders in the healthcare industry in the United States in 2020, 47 percent of respondents indicated that lack of data standardization was the biggest challenge to health data sharing between payers and providers. Furthermore, a lack of technical interoperability and quality of data that is shared was each noted by 44 percent of respondents.

Industrial Energy End Use in the U.S

Facility-Level Combustion Energy Data

By US Open Data Portal, data.gov [source]

About this dataset

This dataset contains in-depth facility-level information on industrial combustion energy use in the United States. It provides an essential resource for understanding consumption patterns across different sectors and industries, as reported by large emitters (>25,000 metric tons CO2e per year) under the U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Our records have been calculated using EPA default emissions factors and contain data on fuel type, location (latitude, longitude), combustion unit type and energy end use classified by manufacturing NAICS code. Additionally, our dataset reveals valuable insight into the thermal spectrum of low-temperature energy use from a 2010 Energy Information Administration Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). This information is critical to assessing industrial trends of energy consumption in manufacturing sectors and can serve as an informative baseline for efficient or renewable alternative plans of operation at these facilities. With this dataset you're just a few clicks away from analyzing research questions related to consumption levels across industries, waste issues associated with unconstrained fossil fuel burning practices and their environmental impacts

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides detailed information on industrial combustion energy end use in the United States. Knowing how certain industries use fuel can be valuable for those interested in reducing energy consumption and its associated environmental impacts.

• To make the most out of this dataset, users should first become familiar with what's included by looking at the columns and their respective definitions. After becoming familiar with the data, users should start to explore areas of interest such as Fuel Type, Report Year, Primary NAICS Code, Emissions Indicators etc. The more granular and specific details you can focus on will help build a stronger analysis from which to draw conclusions from your data set.

• Next steps could include filtering your data set down by region or end user type (such as direct related processes or indirect support activities). Segmenting your data set further can allow you to identify trends between fuel type used in different regions or compare emissions indicators between different processes within manufacturing industries etc. By taking a closer look through this lens you may be able to find valuable insights that can help inform better decision making when it comes to reducing energy consumption throughout industry in both public and private sectors alike.

• if exploring specific trends within industry is not something that’s of particular interest to you but rather understanding general patterns among large emitters across regions then it may be beneficial for your analysis to group like-data together and take averages over larger samples which better represent total production across an area or multiple states (timeline varies depending on needs). This approach could open up new possibilities for exploring correlations between economic productivity metrics compared against industrial energy use over periods of time which could lead towards more formal investigations about where efforts are being made towards improved resource efficiency standards among certain industries/areas of production compared against other more inefficient sectors/regionsetc — all from what's already present here!

By leveraging the information provided within this dataset users have access to many opportunities for finding all sorts of interesting yet practical insights which can have important impacts far beyond understanding just another singular statistic alone; so happy digging!

Research Ideas

• Analyzing the trends in combustion energy uses by region across different industries.
• Predicting the potential of transitioning to clean and renewable sources of energy considering the current end-uses and their magnitude based on this data.
• Creating an interactive web map application to visualize multiple industrial sites, including their energy sources and emissions data from this dataset combined with other sources (EPA’s GHGRP, MECS survey, etc)

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

**License: [CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) - Public Domain Dedication](https://creativecommons...

Conservation planning in the Great Plains often depends on understanding the degree of fragmentation of the various types of grasslands and savannas that historically occurred in this region. To define ecological subregions of the Great Plains, we used a revised version of Kuchler’s (1964) map of the potential natural vegetation of the United States. The map was digitized from the 1979 physiographic regions map produced by the Bureau of Land Management, which added 10 physiognomic types. All analyses are based on data sources specific to the United States; hence, we only analyze the portion of the Great Plains occurring in the United States.We sought to quantify the current amount of rangeland in the US Great Plains converted due to 1) woody plant encroachment; 2) urban, exurban, and other forms of development (e.g., energy infrastructure); and 3) cultivation of cropland. At the time of this analysis, the most contemporary measure of land cover across the United States was the 2011 NLCD (Homer et al. 2015). One limitation of the NLCD is that some grasslands with high rates of productivity, such as herbaceous wetlands or grasslands along riparian zones, are misclassified as cropland. A second limitation is the inability to capture cropland conversion occurring after 2011 (Lark et al. 2015). Beginning in 2009 (and retroactively for 2008), the US Department of Agriculture - NASS has annually produced a Cropland Data Layer (CDL) for the United States from satellite imagery, which maps individual crop types at a 30-m spatial resolution. We used the annual CDLs from 2011 to 2017 to map the distribution of cropland in the Great Plains. We merged this map with the 2011 NLCD to evaluate the degree of fragmentation of grasslands and savannas in the Great Plains as a result of conversion to urban land, cropland, or woodland. We produced two maps of fragmentation (best case and worst case scenarios) that quantify this fragmentation at a 30 x 30 m pixel resolution across the US Great Plains, and make them available for download here. Resources in this dataset: Resource title: Data Dictionary for Figure 2 derived land cover of the US portion of the North American Great Plains File name: Figure2_Key for landcover classes.csv Resource title: Figure 1. Potential natural vegetation of US portion of the North American Great Plains, adapted from Kuchler (1964). File name: Figure1_Kuchler_GPRangelands.zip Resource description: Extracted grassland, shrubland, savanna, and forest communities in the US Great Plains from the revised Kuchler natural vegetation map Resource title: Figure 2. Derived land cover of the US portion of the North American Great Plains. File name: Figure2_Key for landcover classes.zip Resource description: The fNLCD-CDL product estimates that 43.7% of the Great Plains still consists of grasslands and shrublands, with the remainder consisting of 40.6% cropland, 4.4% forests, 3.0% UGC, 3.0% developed open space, 2.9% improved pasture or hay fields, 1.2% developed land, 1.0% water, and 0.2% barren land, with important regional and subregional variation in the extent of rangeland loss to cropland, forests, and developed land. Resource title: Figure 3. Variation in the degree of fragmentation of Great Plains measured in terms of distance to cropland, forest, or developed lands. File name: Figure3_bestcase_disttofrag.zip Resource description: This map depicts a “best case” scenario in which 1) croplands are mapped based only on the US Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layers (2011e2017), 2) all grass-dominated cover types including hay fields and improved pasture are considered rangelands, and 3) developed open space (as defined by the National Land Cover Database) are assumed to not be a fragmenting land cover type. Resource title: Figure 4. Variation in the degree of fragmentation of Great Plains measured in terms of distances to cropland, forest, or developed lands. File name: Figure4_worstcase_disttofrag.zip Resource description: This map depicts a ‘worst case’ scenario in which 1) croplands are mapped based on the US Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layers (2011e2017) and the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD), 2) hay fields and improved pasture are not included as rangelands, and 3) developed open space (as defined by NLCD) is included as a fragmenting land cover type.

analyze the current population survey (cps) annual social and economic supplement (asec) with r the annual march cps-asec has been supplying the statistics for the census bureau's report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage since 1948. wow. the us census bureau and the bureau of labor statistics ( bls) tag-team on this one. until the american community survey (acs) hit the scene in the early aughts (2000s), the current population survey had the largest sample size of all the annual general demographic data sets outside of the decennial census - about two hundred thousand respondents. this provides enough sample to conduct state- and a few large metro area-level analyses. your sample size will vanish if you start investigating subgroups b y state - consider pooling multiple years. county-level is a no-no. despite the american community survey's larger size, the cps-asec contains many more variables related to employment, sources of income, and insurance - and can be trended back to harry truman's presidency. aside from questions specifically asked about an annual experience (like income), many of the questions in this march data set should be t reated as point-in-time statistics. cps-asec generalizes to the united states non-institutional, non-active duty military population. the national bureau of economic research (nber) provides sas, spss, and stata importation scripts to create a rectangular file (rectangular data means only person-level records; household- and family-level information gets attached to each person). to import these files into r, the parse.SAScii function uses nber's sas code to determine how to import the fixed-width file, then RSQLite to put everything into a schnazzy database. you can try reading through the nber march 2012 sas importation code yourself, but it's a bit of a proc freak show. this new github repository contains three scripts: 2005-2012 asec - download all microdata.R down load the fixed-width file containing household, family, and person records import by separating this file into three tables, then merge 'em together at the person-level download the fixed-width file containing the person-level replicate weights merge the rectangular person-level file with the replicate weights, then store it in a sql database create a new variable - one - in the data table 2012 asec - analysis examples.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' progr am create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights perform a boatload of analysis examples replicate census estimates - 2011.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' program create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights match the sas output shown in the png file below 2011 asec replicate weight sas output.png statistic and standard error generated from the replicate-weighted example sas script contained in this census-provided person replicate weights usage instructions document. click here to view these three scripts for more detail about the current population survey - annual social and economic supplement (cps-asec), visit: the census bureau's current population survey page the bureau of labor statistics' current population survey page the current population survey's wikipedia article notes: interviews are conducted in march about experiences during the previous year. the file labeled 2012 includes information (income, work experience, health insurance) pertaining to 2011. when you use the current populat ion survey to talk about america, subract a year from the data file name. as of the 2010 file (the interview focusing on america during 2009), the cps-asec contains exciting new medical out-of-pocket spending variables most useful for supplemental (medical spending-adjusted) poverty research. confidential to sas, spss, stata, sudaan users: why are you still rubbing two sticks together after we've invented the butane lighter? time to transition to r. :D

Large Scale International Boundaries

Version 11.1 Release Date: August 22, 2022

Overview

The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. These data and their derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. They reflect U.S. Government policy, and not necessarily de facto limits of control. This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset.

Details

Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions and national mapping agencies. Where available, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery of the data involves analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground.

Attributes

The dataset uses the following attributes: Attribute Name Explanation Country Code Country-level codes are from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC). The Q2 code denotes a line representing a boundary associated with an area not in GENC. Country Names Names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN). Names for lines associated with a Q2 code are descriptive and are not necessarily BGN-approved. Label Required text label for the line segment where scale permits Rank/Status Rank 1: International Boundary Rank 2: Other Line of International Separation Rank 3: Special Line Notes Explanation of any applicable special circumstances Cartographic Usage Depiction of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundaries: International Boundaries (Rank 1), Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2), and Special Lines (Rank 3). Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Additional cartographic information can be found in Guidance Bulletins (https://hiu.state.gov/data/cartographic_guidance_bulletins/) published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues. Please direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov.

Credits

The lines in the LSIB dataset are the product of decades of collaboration between geographers at the Department of State and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency and the UK Defence Geographic Centre. Attribution is welcome: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues.

Changes from Prior Release

This version of the LSIB contains changes and accuracy refinements for the following line segments. These changes reflect improvements in spatial accuracy derived from newly available source materials, an ongoing review process, or the publication of new treaties or agreements. Changes to lines include: • Akrotiri (UK) / Cyprus • Albania / Montenegro • Albania / Greece • Albania / North Macedonia • Armenia / Turkey • Austria / Czechia • Austria / Slovakia • Austria / Hungary • Austria / Slovenia • Austria / Germany • Austria / Italy • Austria / Switzerland • Azerbaijan / Turkey • Azerbaijan / Iran • Belarus / Latvia • Belarus / Russia • Belarus / Ukraine • Belarus / Poland • Bhutan / India • Bhutan / China • Bulgaria / Turkey • Bulgaria / Romania • Bulgaria / Serbia • Bulgaria / Romania • China / Tajikistan • China / India • Croatia / Slovenia • Croatia / Hungary • Croatia / Serbia • Croatia / Montenegro • Czechia / Slovakia • Czechia / Poland • Czechia / Germany • Finland / Russia • Finland / Norway • Finland / Sweden • France / Italy • Georgia / Turkey • Germany / Poland • Germany / Switzerland • Greece / North Macedonia • Guyana / Suriname • Hungary / Slovenia • Hungary / Serbia • Hungary / Romania • Hungary / Ukraine • Iran / Turkey • Iraq / Turkey • Italy / Slovenia • Italy / Switzerland • Italy / Vatican City • Italy / San Marino • Kazakhstan / Russia • Kazakhstan / Uzbekistan • Kosovo / north Macedonia • Kosovo / Serbia • Kyrgyzstan / Tajikistan • Kyrgyzstan / Uzbekistan • Latvia / Russia • Latvia / Lithuania • Lithuania / Poland • Lithuania / Russia • Moldova / Ukraine • Moldova / Romania • Norway / Russia • Norway / Sweden • Poland / Russia • Poland / Ukraine • Poland / Slovakia • Romania / Ukraine • Romania / Serbia • Russia / Ukraine • Syria / Turkey • Tajikistan / Uzbekistan

This release also contains topology fixes, land boundary terminus refinements, and tripoint adjustments.

Copyright Notice and Disclaimer

While U.S. Government works prepared by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not subject to Federal copyright protection (see 17 U.S.C. § 105), copyrighted material incorporated in U.S. Government works retains its copyright protection. The works on or made available through download from the U.S. Department of State’s website may not be used in any manner that infringes any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights held by any third party. Use of any copyrighted material beyond what is allowed by fair use or other exemptions may require appropriate permission from the relevant rightsholder. With respect to works on or made available through download from the U.S. Department of State’s website, neither the U.S. Government nor any of its agencies, employees, agents, or contractors make any representations or warranties—express, implied, or statutory—as to the validity, accuracy, completeness, or fitness for a particular purpose; nor represent that use of such works would not infringe privately owned rights; nor assume any liability resulting from use of such works; and shall in no way be liable for any costs, expenses, claims, or demands arising out of use of such works.

United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Competition from Large Businesses data was reported at 6.000 % in Mar 2025. This records a decrease from the previous number of 7.000 % for Feb 2025. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Competition from Large Businesses data is updated monthly, averaging 8.000 % from Jan 2014 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 131 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.000 % in Dec 2019 and a record low of 0.000 % in May 2022. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Competition from Large Businesses data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Federation of Independent Business. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.S042: NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism. [COVID-19-IMPACT]

This dataset lists cities which consists of above 15,000 inhabitants. Each city is associated with its country and sub-country to reduce the number of ambiguities. Subcountry can be the name of a state (eg in the United Kingdom or the United States of America) or the major administrative section (eg "region" in "France").

Inflation Rate in the United States decreased to 2.30 percent in April from 2.40 percent in March of 2025. This dataset provides - United States Inflation Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Snapshot img

Big Data Market Size 2024-2028

The big data market size is forecast to increase by USD 508.73 billion at a CAGR of 21.46% between 2023 and 2028.

The market is experiencing significant growth, driven primarily by the surge in data generation across various industries. According to recent estimates, the global data volume is projected to reach 175 zettabytes by 2025, necessitating advanced data processing and analytical tools. Another key trend in the market is the increasing adoption of blockchain solutions to enhance big data implementation. This technology offers improved security, transparency, and immutability, making it an attractive option for businesses handling large volumes of sensitive data. However, the market also faces challenges, most notably the rise in data security issues. With the increasing adoption of cloud-based solutions and the growing use of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, the risk of data breaches and cyber-attacks is on the rise. Companies must invest in robust security measures to protect their data from unauthorized access and ensure compliance with data protection regulations. Additionally, the complexity of managing and analyzing large data sets can be a significant challenge, requiring specialized skills and resources. To capitalize on market opportunities and navigate these challenges effectively, businesses must stay abreast of the latest trends and technologies, and invest in training and development for their workforce.

What will be the Size of the Big Data Market during the forecast period?

Request Free SampleIn the ever-evolving world of big data, market dynamics continue to unfold, shaping the way businesses leverage data to drive innovation and gain competitive advantages. Artificial intelligence (AI) and data visualization tools are increasingly integrated into business processes, enabling real-time analytics and data-driven decision making. Financial analytics and data storytelling are essential components of data-driven innovation, providing insights into complex financial data and facilitating effective communication of data-driven insights. Data management tools and platforms are crucial for data integration, ensuring seamless data flow between various systems and applications. Data engineers and architects play a pivotal role in designing and implementing robust data infrastructure, while data governance professionals ensure data privacy and compliance. IoT analytics and machine learning are transforming industries, from healthcare to marketing, by providing actionable insights from vast amounts of data. Data monetization and data-driven business models are emerging trends, with companies exploring new revenue streams by leveraging their data assets. Data ethics and data literacy are becoming increasingly important, as businesses grapple with the ethical implications of data use and the need to equip employees with the skills to effectively analyze and interpret data. Predictive analytics and marketing analytics are also gaining traction, providing valuable insights into customer behavior and preferences. Data transformation is a continuous process, with new technologies and trends emerging regularly. Big data consulting and data engineering services are in high demand, as businesses seek to optimize their data strategies and stay ahead of the competition. Nosql databases, data lakes, and data mining are just a few of the many tools and techniques being used to manage and analyze large, complex data sets. In this dynamic landscape, data-driven decision making is the key to success. Companies that can effectively harness the power of their data, while ensuring data privacy and security, will be well-positioned to thrive in the digital age.

How is this Big Data Industry segmented?

The big data industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2024-2028, as well as historical data from 2018-2022 for the following segments. DeploymentOn-premisesCloud-basedHybridTypeServicesSoftwareData TypeStructuredSemi-StructuredUnstructuredBusiness FunctionMarketing & SalesFinance & AccountingHuman ResourcesOperationsOthersVerticalsBanking, Financial Services, and Insurance (BFSI)Healthcare & Life SciencesRetail & Consumer GoodsIT & TelecomManufacturingGovernment & DefenseTransportation & LogisticsMedia & EntertainmentOthersGeographyNorth AmericaUSCanadaEuropeFranceGermanyItalyUKMiddle East and AfricaEgyptKSAOmanUAEAPACChinaIndiaJapanSouth AmericaArgentinaBrazilRest of World (ROW)

By Deployment Insights

The on-premises segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.In the realm of big data, on-premises and cloud-based deployment models continue to shape the market's dynamics. On-premises big data software solutions offer clients complete control over their hardware and sof

Contains:World HillshadeWorld Street Map (with Relief) - Base LayerLarge Scale International Boundaries (v11.3)World Street Map (with Relief) - LabelsDoS Country Labels DoS Country LabelsCountry (admin 0) labels that have been vetted for compliance with foreign policy and legal requirements. These labels are part of the US Federal Government Basemap, which contains the borders and place names that have been vetted for compliance with foreign policy and legal requirements.Source: DoS Country Labels - Overview (arcgis.com)Large Scale International BoundariesVersion 11.3Release Date: December 19, 2023DownloadFor more information on the LSIB click here: https://geodata.state.gov/ A direct link to the data is available here: https://data.geodata.state.gov/LSIB.zipAn ISO-compliant version of the LSIB metadata (in ISO 19139 format) is here: https://geodata.state.gov/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/3bdb81a0-c1b9-439a-a0b1-85dac30c59b2 Direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.govOverviewThe Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. The current edition is version 11.3 (published 19 December 2023). The 11.3 release contains updates to boundary lines and data refinements enabling reuse of the dataset. These data and generalized derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. The contents of this dataset reflect U.S. Government policy on international boundary alignment, political recognition, and dispute status. They do not necessarily reflect de facto limits of control.National Geospatial Data AssetThis dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset managed by the Department of State on behalf of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's International Boundaries Theme.DetailsSources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions and national mapping agencies. Where available and applicable, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery process involves analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground.Attribute StructureThe dataset uses thefollowing attributes:Attribute NameCC1COUNTRY1CC2COUNTRY2RANKSTATUSLABELNOTES These attributes are logically linked:Linked AttributesCC1COUNTRY1CC2COUNTRY2RANKSTATUS These attributes have external sources:Attribute NameExternal Data SourceCC1GENCCOUNTRY1DoS ListsCC2GENCCOUNTRY2DoS ListsThe eight attributes listed above describe the boundary lines contained within the LSIB dataset in both a human and machine-readable fashion. Other attributes in the release include "FID", "Shape", and "Shape_Leng" are components of the shapefile format and do not form an intrinsic part of the LSIB."CC1" and "CC2" fields are machine readable fields which contain political entity codes. These codes are derived from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC) Edition 3 Update 18. The dataset uses the GENC two-character codes. The code ‘Q2’, which is not in GENC, denotes a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with an area not contained within the GENC standard.The "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields contain human-readable text corresponding to the name of the political entity. These names are names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as incorporated in the list of Independent States in the World and the list of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty maintained by the Department of State. To ensure the greatest compatibility, names are presented without diacritics and certain names are rendered using commonly accepted cartographic abbreviations. Names for lines associated with the code ‘Q2’ are descriptive and are not necessarily BGN-approved. Names rendered in all CAPITAL LETTERS are names of independent states. Other names are those associated with dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, or are otherwise presented for the convenience of the user.The following fields are an intrinsic part of the LSIB dataset and do not rely on external sources:Attribute NameMandatoryContains NullsRANKYesNoSTATUSYesNoLABELNoYesNOTESNoYesNeither the "RANK" nor "STATUS" field contains null values; the "LABEL" and "NOTES" fields do.The "RANK" field is a numeric, machine-readable expression of the "STATUS" field. Collectively, these fields encode the views of the United States Government on the political status of the boundary line.Attribute NameValueRANK123STATUSInternational BoundaryOther Line of International Separation Special Line A value of "1" in the "RANK" field corresponds to an "International Boundary" value in the "STATUS" field. Values of "2" and "3" correspond to "Other Line of International Separation" and "Special Line", respectively.The "LABEL" field contains required text necessarily to describe the line segment. The "LABEL" field is used when the line segment is displayed on maps or other forms of cartographic visualizations. This includes most interactive products. The requirement to incorporate the contents of the "LABEL" field on these products is scale dependent. If a label is legible at the scale of a given static product a proper use of this dataset would encourage the application of that label. Using the contents of the "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields in the generation of a line segment label is not required. The "STATUS" field is not a line labeling field but does contain the preferred description for the three LSIB line types when lines are incorporated into a map legend. Using the "CC1", "CC2", or "RANK" fields for labeling purposes is prohibited.The "NOTES" field contains an explanation of any applicable special circumstances modifying the lines. This information can pertain to the origins of the boundary lines, any limitations regarding the purpose of the lines, or the original source of the line. Use of the "NOTES" field for labeling purposes is prohibited.External Data SourcesGeopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Registry: https://nsgreg.nga.mil/GENC-overview.jspU.S. Department of State List of Independent States in the World: https://www.state.gov/independent-states-in-the-world/U.S. Department of State List of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty: https://www.state.gov/dependencies-and-areas-of-special-sovereignty/The source for the U.S.—Canada international boundary (NGDAID97) is the International Boundary Commission: https://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/en/maps-coordinates/coordinates.phpThe source for the “International Boundary between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico” (NGDAID82) is the International Boundary and Water Commission: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset?q=usibwcCartographic UsageCartographic usage of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundaries. Specifically, this differentiation must be between:- International Boundaries (Rank 1);- Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2); and- Special Lines (Rank 3).Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary.Additional cartographic information can be found in Guidance Bulletins (https://hiu.state.gov/data/cartographic_guidance_bulletins/) published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues.ContactDirect inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov.CreditsThe lines in the LSIB dataset are the product of decades of collaboration between geographers at the Department of State and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency and the UK Defence Geographic Centre.Attribution is welcome: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues.Changes from Prior ReleaseThe 11.3 release is the third update in the version 11 series.This version of the LSIB contains changes and accuracy refinements for the following line segments. These changes reflect improvements in spatial accuracy derived from newly available source materials, an ongoing review process, or the publication of new treaties or agreements. Notable changes to lines include:• AFGHANISTAN / IRAN• ALBANIA / GREECE• ALBANIA / KOSOVO• ALBANIA/MONTENEGRO• ALBANIA / NORTH MACEDONIA• ALGERIA / MOROCCO• ARGENTINA / BOLIVIA• ARGENTINA / CHILE• BELARUS / POLAND• BOLIVIA / PARAGUAY• BRAZIL / GUYANA• BRAZIL / VENEZUELA• BRAZIL / French Guiana (FR.)• BRAZIL / SURINAME• CAMBODIA / LAOS• CAMBODIA / VIETNAM• CAMEROON / CHAD• CAMEROON / NIGERIA• CHINA / INDIA• CHINA / NORTH KOREA• CHINA / Aksai Chin• COLOMBIA / VENEZUELA• CONGO, DEM. REP. OF THE / UGANDA• CZECHIA / GERMANY• EGYPT / LIBYA• ESTONIA / RUSSIA• French Guiana (FR.) / SURINAME• GREECE / NORTH MACEDONIA• GUYANA / VENEZUELA• INDIA / Aksai Chin• KAZAKHSTAN / RUSSIA• KOSOVO / MONTENEGRO• KOSOVO / SERBIA• LAOS / VIETNAM• LATVIA / LITHUANIA• MEXICO / UNITED STATES• MONTENEGRO / SERBIA• MOROCCO / SPAIN• POLAND / RUSSIA• ROMANIA / UKRAINEVersions 11.0 and 11.1 were updates to boundary lines. Like this version, they also contained topology fixes, land boundary terminus refinements, and tripoint adjustments. Version 11.2 corrected a few errors in the attribute data and ensured that CC1 and CC2 attributes are in alignment with an updated version of the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes (GENC) Standard, specifically Edition 3 Update 17.LayersLarge_Scale_International_BoundariesTerms of

The Big Data in Oil and Gas market is experiencing robust growth, projected to reach $3051.9 million in 2025 and maintain a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 9.0% from 2025 to 2033. This expansion is driven by the increasing need for enhanced operational efficiency, predictive maintenance, reservoir optimization, and improved safety measures within the energy sector. Companies are leveraging big data analytics to extract valuable insights from massive datasets encompassing seismic surveys, well logs, production data, and sensor readings. This leads to better decision-making regarding exploration, drilling, production, and supply chain management, ultimately resulting in cost savings and increased profitability. The market is segmented by software solutions, services, and applications across oil and gas operations. Key players like HPE, IBM, Oracle, and Teradata are driving innovation and adoption of big data technologies, fostering competition and accelerating market development. North America, particularly the United States, currently holds a significant market share due to advanced technological infrastructure and a large number of energy companies. However, regions like Asia Pacific are expected to witness substantial growth fueled by increasing investment in energy infrastructure and technological advancements. The market's restraints include concerns over data security, integration challenges with legacy systems, and the high cost of implementing and maintaining big data infrastructure. Despite these challenges, the long-term outlook for Big Data in Oil and Gas remains positive, driven by continuous technological advancements and growing demand for data-driven insights across the value chain. The significant growth trajectory is further supported by the increasing adoption of cloud-based solutions, which offer scalability, cost-effectiveness, and enhanced data accessibility. Moreover, the emergence of advanced analytics techniques like machine learning and artificial intelligence is facilitating more accurate predictive modeling and improved operational efficiency. The market’s regional diversification is also noteworthy; while North America maintains dominance, the rapid expansion of the energy sector in regions like Asia Pacific and the Middle East & Africa presents lucrative opportunities for growth. Future growth will hinge on addressing challenges related to data security and interoperability, fostering collaboration between technology providers and energy companies, and promoting the development of industry standards for data management and analysis. The continued focus on sustainability and environmental regulations will also shape the future landscape, with big data playing a crucial role in optimizing energy production and reducing environmental impact.

United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: A Year Ago: Competit'n from Big Bus data was reported at 4.000 % in Mar 2025. This stayed constant from the previous number of 4.000 % for Feb 2025. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: A Year Ago: Competit'n from Big Bus data is updated monthly, averaging 8.000 % from Jan 2014 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 131 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 15.000 % in Sep 2017 and a record low of 0.000 % in May 2023. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: A Year Ago: Competit'n from Big Bus data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Federation of Independent Business. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.S042: NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism. [COVID-19-IMPACT]