Data Usage Notice

This version is not recommended for download. Please check the newest version.

We would like to inform you that the updated GlobPOP dataset (2021-2022) have been available in version 2.0. The GlobPOP dataset (2021-2022) in the current version is not recommended for your work. The GlobPOP dataset (1990-2020) in the current version is the same as version 1.0.

Thank you for your continued support of the GlobPOP.

If you encounter any issues, please contact us via email at lulingliu@mail.bnu.edu.cn.

Introduction

Continuously monitoring global population spatial dynamics is essential for implementing effective policies related to sustainable development, such as epidemiology, urban planning, and global inequality.

Here, we present GlobPOP, a new continuous global gridded population product with a high-precision spatial resolution of 30 arcseconds from 1990 to 2020. Our data-fusion framework is based on cluster analysis and statistical learning approaches, which intends to fuse the existing five products(Global Human Settlements Layer Population (GHS-POP), Global Rural Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), Gridded Population of the World Version 4 (GPWv4), LandScan Population datasets and WorldPop datasets to a new continuous global gridded population (GlobPOP). The spatial validation results demonstrate that the GlobPOP dataset is highly accurate. To validate the temporal accuracy of GlobPOP at the country level, we have developed an interactive web application, accessible at https://globpop.shinyapps.io/GlobPOP/, where data users can explore the country-level population time-series curves of interest and compare them with census data.

With the availability of GlobPOP dataset in both population count and population density formats, researchers and policymakers can leverage our dataset to conduct time-series analysis of population and explore the spatial patterns of population development at various scales, ranging from national to city level.

Data description

The product is produced in 30 arc-seconds resolution(approximately 1km in equator) and is made available in GeoTIFF format. There are two population formats, one is the 'Count'(Population count per grid) and another is the 'Density'(Population count per square kilometer each grid)

Each GeoTIFF filename has 5 fields that are separated by an underscore "_". A filename extension follows these fields. The fields are described below with the example filename:

GlobPOP_Count_30arc_1990_I32

Field 1: GlobPOP(Global gridded population)
Field 2: Pixel unit is population "Count" or population "Density"
Field 3: Spatial resolution is 30 arc seconds
Field 4: Year "1990"
Field 5: Data type is I32(Int 32) or F32(Float32)

More information

Please refer to the paper for detailed information:

Liu, L., Cao, X., Li, S. et al. A 31-year (1990–2020) global gridded population dataset generated by cluster analysis and statistical learning. Sci Data 11, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-02913-0.

The fully reproducible codes are publicly available at GitHub: https://github.com/lulingliu/GlobPOP.

The Global Population Count Grid Time Series Estimates provide a back-cast time series of population grids based on the year 2000 population grid from SEDAC's Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project, Version 1 (GRUMPv1) data set. The grids were created by using rates of population change between decades from the coarser resolution History Database of the Global Environment (HYDE) database to back-cast the GRUMPv1 population count grids. Mismatches between the spatial extent of the HYDE calculated rates and GRUMPv1 population data were resolved via infilling rate cells based on a focal mean of values. Finally, the grids were adjusted so that the population totals for each country equaled the UN World Population Prospects (2008 Revision) estimates for that country for the respective year (1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000). These data do not represent census observations for the years prior to 2000, and therefore can at best be thought of as estimations of the populations in given locations. The population grids are consistent internally within the time series, but are not recommended for use in creating longer time series with any other population grids, including GRUMPv1, Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4), or non-SEDAC developed population grids. These population grids served as an input to SEDAC's Global Estimated Net Migration Grids by Decade: 1970-2000 data set.

Data Update Notice 数据更新通知

We are pleased to announce that the GlobPOP dataset for the years 2021-2022 has undergone a comprehensive quality check and has now been updated accordingly. Following the established methodology that ensures the high precision and reliability, these latest updates allow for even more comprehensive time-series analysis. The updated GlobPOP dataset remains available in GeoTIFF format for easy integration into your existing workflows.

2021-2022 年的 GlobPOP 数据集经过全面的质量检查,现已进行相应更新。 遵循确保高精度和可靠性的原有方法,本次更新允许进行更全面的时间序列分析。 更新后的 GlobPOP 数据集仍以 GeoTIFF 格式提供,以便轻松集成到您现有的工作流中。

To reflect these updates, our interactive web application has also been refreshed. Users can now explore the updated national population time-series curves from 1990 to 2022. This can be accessed via the same link: https://globpop.shinyapps.io/GlobPOP/. Thank you for your continued support of the GlobPOP, and we hope that the updated data will further enhance your research and policy analysis endeavors.

交互式网页反映了人口最新动态,用户现在可以探索感兴趣的国家1990 年至 2022 年人口时间序列曲线,并将其与人口普查数据进行比较。感谢您对 GlobPOP 的支持,我们希望更新的数据将进一步加强您的研究和政策分析工作。

If you encounter any issues, please contact us via email at lulingliu@mail.bnu.edu.cn.

如果您遇到任何问题,请通过电子邮件联系我们。

Introduction

Continuously monitoring global population spatial dynamics is essential for implementing effective policies related to sustainable development, such as epidemiology, urban planning, and global inequality. 持续监测全球人口空间动态对于实施与可持续发展相关的有效政策至关重要,例如流行病学、城市规划和全球不平等。

Here, we present GlobPOP, a new continuous global gridded population product with a high-precision spatial resolution of 30 arcseconds from 1990 to 2022. Our data-fusion framework is based on cluster analysis and statistical learning approaches, which intends to fuse the existing five products(Global Human Settlements Layer Population (GHS-POP), Global Rural Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), Gridded Population of the World Version 4 (GPWv4), LandScan Population datasets and WorldPop datasets to a new continuous global gridded population (GlobPOP). The temporal and spatial validation results demonstrate that the GlobPOP dataset is highly accurate. GlobPOP是一套新的连续全球网格人口产品,时间跨度为从 1990 年到 2022 年,空间分辨率为 30 弧秒。数据生产融合框架基于聚类分析和统计学习方法,旨在融合现有的五个 产品(GHS-POP、GRUMP、GPWv4、LandScan和WorldPop)。时空验证结果表明GlobPOP 数据集高度准确。

With the availability of GlobPOP dataset in both population count and population density formats, researchers and policymakers can leverage our dataset to conduct time-series analysis of population and explore the spatial patterns of population development at various scales, ranging from national to city level. 通过人口计数和人口密度格式的 GlobPOP 数据集,研究人员和政策制定者可以利用该数据集对人口进行时间序列分析,并探索不同尺度的人口发展时空模式。

Data description

The product is produced in 30 arc-seconds resolution(approximately 1km in equator) and is made available in GeoTIFF format. There are two population formats, one is the 'Count'(Population count per grid) and another is the 'Density'(Population count per square kilometer each grid)

Each GeoTIFF filename has 5 fields that are separated by an underscore "_". A filename extension follows these fields. The fields are described below with the example filename:

GlobPOP_Count_30arc_1990_I32

Field 1: GlobPOP(Global gridded population)
Field 2: Pixel unit is population "Count" or population "Density"
Field 3: Spatial resolution is 30 arc seconds
Field 4: Year "1990"
Field 5: Data type is I32(Int 32) or F32(Float32)

More information

本数据相关论文已发表在Scientific Data,代码可在GitHub获取。

Please refer to the paper for detailed information:

Liu, L., Cao, X., Li, S. et al. A 31-year (1990–2020) global gridded population dataset generated by cluster analysis and statistical learning. Sci Data 11, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-02913-0.

The fully reproducible codes are publicly available at GitHub: https://github.com/lulingliu/GlobPOP.

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve.

The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj.

The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 .

The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 .

The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed.

This dataset includes a count and rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a count of COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tests, and a percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings for the previous two-week period. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity).

A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case.

Percent positivity is calculated as the number of positive tests among community residents conducted during the 14 days divided by the total number of positive and negative tests among community residents during the same period. If someone was tested more than once during that 14 day period, then those multiple test results (regardless of whether they were positive or negative) are included in the calculation.

These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities.

These data are updated weekly and reflect the previous two full Sunday-Saturday (MMWR) weeks (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf).

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: Prior to 10/15/2020, these metrics were calculated using a 7-day average rather than a 14-day average. The 7-day metrics are no longer being updated as of 10/15/2020 but the archived dataset can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/s22x-83rd

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

Additional notes: As of 11/5/2020, CT DPH has added antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 to reported test counts in this dataset. The tests included in this dataset include both molecular and antigen datasets. Molecular tests reported include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nucleic acid amplicfication (NAAT) tests.

The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used.

Data suppression is applied when the rate is <5 cases per 100,000 or if there are <5 cases within the town. Information on why data suppression rules are applied can be found online here: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/technical_notes/stat_methods/suppression.htm

From the AfriPop website..."High resolution, contemporary data on human population distributions are a prerequisite for the accurate measurement of the impacts of population growth, for monitoring changes and for planning interventions. The AfriPop project was initiated in July 2009 with an aim of producing detailed and freely-available population distribution maps for the whole of Africa. Based on the approaches outlined in detail here and here, and summarized on the methods page, fine resolution satellite imagery-derived settlement maps are combined with land cover maps to reallocate contemporary census-based spatial population count data. Assessments have shown that the resultant maps are more accurate than existing population map products, as well as the simple gridding of census data. Moreover, the 100m spatial resolution represents a finer mapping detail than has ever before been produced at national extents. The approaches used in AfriPop dataset production are designed with operational application in mind, using simple and semi-automated methods to produce easily updatable maps. Given the speed with which population growth and urbanisation are occurring across much of Africa, and the impacts these are having on the economies, environments and health of nations, such features are a necessity for both research and operational applications."Data Source: AfriPop.org

WorldPop produces different types of gridded population count datasets, depending on the methods used and end application. Please make sure you have read our Mapping Populations overview page before choosing and downloading a dataset.


Bespoke methods used to produce datasets for specific individual countries are available through the WorldPop Open Population Repository (WOPR) link below. These are 100m resolution gridded population estimates using customized methods ("bottom-up" and/or "top-down") developed for the latest data available from each country. They can also be visualised and explored through the woprVision App.
The remaining datasets in the links below are produced using the "top-down" method, with either the unconstrained or constrained top-down disaggregation method used. Please make sure you read the Top-down estimation modelling overview page to decide on which datasets best meet your needs. Datasets are available to download in Geotiff and ASCII XYZ format at a resolution of 3 and 30 arc-seconds (approximately 100m and 1km at the equator, respectively):

- Unconstrained individual countries 2000-2020 ( 1km resolution ): Consistent 1km resolution population count datasets created using unconstrained top-down methods for all countries of the World for each year 2000-2020.
- Unconstrained individual countries 2000-2020 ( 100m resolution ): Consistent 100m resolution population count datasets created using unconstrained top-down methods for all countries of the World for each year 2000-2020.
- Unconstrained individual countries 2000-2020 UN adjusted ( 100m resolution ): Consistent 100m resolution population count datasets created using unconstrained top-down methods for all countries of the World for each year 2000-2020 and adjusted to match United Nations national population estimates (UN 2019)
-Unconstrained individual countries 2000-2020 UN adjusted ( 1km resolution ): Consistent 1km resolution population count datasets created using unconstrained top-down methods for all countries of the World for each year 2000-2020 and adjusted to match United Nations national population estimates (UN 2019).
-Unconstrained global mosaics 2000-2020 ( 1km resolution ): Mosaiced 1km resolution versions of the "Unconstrained individual countries 2000-2020" datasets.
-Constrained individual countries 2020 ( 100m resolution ): Consistent 100m resolution population count datasets created using constrained top-down methods for all countries of the World for 2020.
-Constrained individual countries 2020 UN adjusted ( 100m resolution ): Consistent 100m resolution population count datasets created using constrained top-down methods for all countries of the World for 2020 and adjusted to match United Nations national population estimates (UN 2019).

Older datasets produced for specific individual countries and continents, using a set of tailored geospatial inputs and differing "top-down" methods and time periods are still available for download here: Individual countries and Whole Continent.

Data for earlier dates is available directly from WorldPop.

WorldPop (www.worldpop.org - School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton; Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville; Departement de Geographie, Universite de Namur) and Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University (2018). Global High Resolution Population Denominators Project - Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1134076). https://dx.doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/WP00645

Analysis of ‘COVID-19 case rate per 100,000 population and percent test positivity in the last 14 days by town’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/d5e87e00-5f12-4c5e-9fb7-9718e5dbef35 on 13 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

This dataset includes a count and rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a count of COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tests, and a percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings for the previous two-week period. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity).

A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case.

Percent positivity is calculated as the number of positive tests among community residents conducted during the 14 days divided by the total number of positive and negative tests among community residents during the same period. If someone was tested more than once during that 14 day period, then those multiple test results (regardless of whether they were positive or negative) are included in the calculation.

These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities.

These data are updated weekly and reflect the previous two full Sunday-Saturday (MMWR) weeks (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf).

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: Prior to 10/15/2020, these metrics were calculated using a 7-day average rather than a 14-day average. The 7-day metrics are no longer being updated as of 10/15/2020 but the archived dataset can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/s22x-83rd

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

Additional notes: As of 11/5/2020, CT DPH has added antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 to reported test counts in this dataset. The tests included in this dataset include both molecular and antigen datasets. Molecular tests reported include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nucleic acid amplicfication (NAAT) tests.

The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used.

Data suppression is applied when the rate is <5 cases per 100,000 or if there are <5 cases within the town. Information on why data suppression rules are applied can be found online here: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/technical_notes/stat_methods/suppression.htm

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

Note: In these datasets, a person is defined as up to date if they have received at least one dose of an updated COVID-19 vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that certain groups, including adults ages 65 years and older, receive additional doses.

On 6/16/2023 CDPH replaced the booster measures with a new “Up to Date” measure based on CDC’s new recommendations, replacing the primary series, boosted, and bivalent booster metrics The definition of “primary series complete” has not changed and is based on previous recommendations that CDC has since simplified. A person cannot complete their primary series with a single dose of an updated vaccine. Whereas the booster measures were calculated using the eligible population as the denominator, the new up to date measure uses the total estimated population. Please note that the rates for some groups may change since the up to date measure is calculated differently than the previous booster and bivalent measures.

This data is from the same source as the Vaccine Progress Dashboard at https://covid19.ca.gov/vaccination-progress-data/ which summarizes vaccination data at the county level by county of residence. Where county of residence was not reported in a vaccination record, the county of provider that vaccinated the resident is included. This applies to less than 1% of vaccination records. The sum of county-level vaccinations does not equal statewide total vaccinations due to out-of-state residents vaccinated in California.

These data do not include doses administered by the following federal agencies who received vaccine allocated directly from CDC: Indian Health Service, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Defense, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Totals for the Vaccine Progress Dashboard and this dataset may not match, as the Dashboard totals doses by Report Date and this dataset totals doses by Administration Date. Dose numbers may also change for a particular Administration Date as data is updated.

Previous updates:

• On March 3, 2023, with the release of HPI 3.0 in 2022, the previous equity scores have been updated to reflect more recent community survey information. This change represents an improvement to the way CDPH monitors health equity by using the latest and most accurate community data available. The HPI uses a collection of data sources and indicators to calculate a measure of community conditions ranging from the most to the least healthy based on economic, housing, and environmental measures.

• Starting on July 13, 2022, the denominator for calculating vaccine coverage has been changed from age 5+ to all ages to reflect new vaccine eligibility criteria. Previously the denominator was changed from age 16+ to age 12+ on May 18, 2021, then changed from age 12+ to age 5+ on November 10, 2021, to reflect previous changes in vaccine eligibility criteria. The previous datasets based on age 16+ and age 5+ denominators have been uploaded as archived tables.

• Starting on May 29, 2021 the methodology for calculating on-hand inventory in the shipped/delivered/on-hand dataset has changed. Please see the accompanying data dictionary for details. In addition, this dataset is now down to the ZIP code level.

This is a hybrid gridded dataset of demographic data for the world, given as 5-year population bands at a 0.5 degree grid resolution.

This dataset combines the NASA SEDAC Gridded Population of the World version 4 (GPWv4) with the ISIMIP Histsoc gridded population data and the United Nations World Population Program (WPP) demographic modelling data.

Demographic fractions are given for the time period covered by the UN WPP model (1950-2050) while demographic totals are given for the time period covered by the combination of GPWv4 and Histsoc (1950-2020)

Method - demographic fractions

Demographic breakdown of country population by grid cell is calculated by combining the GPWv4 demographic data given for 2010 with the yearly country breakdowns from the UN WPP. This combines the spatial distribution of demographics from GPWv4 with the temporal trends from the UN WPP. This makes it possible to calculate exposure trends from 1980 to the present day.

To combine the UN WPP demographics with the GPWv4 demographics, we calculate for each country the proportional change in fraction of demographic in each age band relative to 2010 as:

\(\delta_{year,\ country,age}^{\text{wpp}} = f_{year,\ country,age}^{\text{wpp}}/f_{2010,country,age}^{\text{wpp}}\)

Where:

- \(\delta_{year,\ country,age}^{\text{wpp}}\) is the ratio of change in demographic for a given age and and country from the UN WPP dataset.

- \(f_{year,\ country,age}^{\text{wpp}}\) is the fraction of population in the UN WPP dataset for a given age band, country, and year.

- \(f_{2010,country,age}^{\text{wpp}}\) is the fraction of population in the UN WPP dataset for a given age band, country for the year 2020.

The gridded demographic fraction is then calculated relative to the 2010 demographic data given by GPWv4.

For each subset of cells corresponding to a given country c, the fraction of population in a given age band is calculated as:

\(f_{year,c,age}^{\text{gpw}} = \delta_{year,\ country,age}^{\text{wpp}}*f_{2010,c,\text{age}}^{\text{gpw}}\)

Where:

- \(f_{year,c,age}^{\text{gpw}}\) is the fraction of the population in a given age band for given year, for the grid cell c.

- \(f_{2010,c,age}^{\text{gpw}}\) is the fraction of the population in a given age band for 2010, for the grid cell c.

The matching between grid cells and country codes is performed using the GPWv4 gridded country code lookup data and country name lookup table. The final dataset is assembled by combining the cells from all countries into a single gridded time series. This time series covers the whole period from 1950-2050, corresponding to the data available in the UN WPP model.

Method - demographic totals

Total population data from 1950 to 1999 is drawn from ISIMIP Histsoc, while data from 2000-2020 is drawn from GPWv4. These two gridded time series are simply joined at the cut-over date to give a single dataset covering 1950-2020.

The total population per age band per cell is calculated by multiplying the population fractions by the population totals per grid cell.

Note that as the total population data only covers until 2020, the time span covered by the demographic population totals data is 1950-2020 (not 1950-2050).

Disclaimer

This dataset is a hybrid of different datasets with independent methodologies. No guarantees are made about the spatial or temporal consistency across dataset boundaries. The dataset may contain outlier points (e.g single cells with demographic fractions >1). This dataset is produced on a 'best effort' basis and has been found to be broadly consistent with other approaches, but may contain inconsistencies which not been identified.

The world population surpassed eight billion people in 2022, having doubled from its figure less than 50 years previously. Looking forward, it is projected that the world population will reach nine billion in 2038, and 10 billion in 2060, but it will peak around 10.3 billion in the 2080s before it then goes into decline. Regional variations The global population has seen rapid growth since the early 1800s, due to advances in areas such as food production, healthcare, water safety, education, and infrastructure, however, these changes did not occur at a uniform time or pace across the world. Broadly speaking, the first regions to undergo their demographic transitions were Europe, North America, and Oceania, followed by Latin America and Asia (although Asia's development saw the greatest variation due to its size), while Africa was the last continent to undergo this transformation. Because of these differences, many so-called "advanced" countries are now experiencing population decline, particularly in Europe and East Asia, while the fastest population growth rates are found in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, the roughly two billion difference in population between now and the 2080s' peak will be found in Sub-Saharan Africa, which will rise from 1.2 billion to 3.2 billion in this time (although populations in other continents will also fluctuate). Changing projections The United Nations releases their World Population Prospects report every 1-2 years, and this is widely considered the foremost demographic dataset in the world. However, recent years have seen a notable decline in projections when the global population will peak, and at what number. Previous reports in the 2010s had suggested a peak of over 11 billion people, and that population growth would continue into the 2100s, however a sooner and shorter peak is now projected. Reasons for this include a more rapid population decline in East Asia and Europe, particularly China, as well as a prolonged development arc in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve.

The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj.

The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 .

The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 .

The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed.

COVID-19 cases and associated deaths that have been reported among Connecticut residents, broken down by race and ethnicity. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the COVID-19 update.

The following data show the number of COVID-19 cases and associated deaths per 100,000 population by race and ethnicity. Crude rates represent the total cases or deaths per 100,000 people. Age-adjusted rates consider the age of the person at diagnosis or death when estimating the rate and use a standardized population to provide a fair comparison between population groups with different age distributions. Age-adjustment is important in Connecticut as the median age of among the non-Hispanic white population is 47 years, whereas it is 34 years among non-Hispanic blacks, and 29 years among Hispanics. Because most non-Hispanic white residents who died were over 75 years of age, the age-adjusted rates are lower than the unadjusted rates. In contrast, Hispanic residents who died tend to be younger than 75 years of age which results in higher age-adjusted rates.

The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used.

Rates are standardized to the 2000 US Millions Standard population (data available here: https://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/). Standardization was done using 19 age groups (0, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, ..., 80-84, 85 years and older). More information about direct standardization for age adjustment is available here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt06rv.pdf

Categories are mutually exclusive. The category “multiracial” includes people who answered ‘yes’ to more than one race category. Counts may not add up to total case counts as data on race and ethnicity may be missing. Age adjusted rates calculated only for groups with more than 20 deaths. Abbreviation: NH=Non-Hispanic.

Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 COVID-19 deaths in this report are defined as those for which the death certificate has an ICD-10 code of U07.1 as either a primary (underlying) or a contributing cause of death. More information on COVID-19 mortality can be found at the following link: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Mortality/Mortality-Statistics

Data are subject to future revision as reporting changes.

Starting in July 2020, this dataset will be updated every weekday.

Additional notes: A delay in the data pull schedule occurred on 06/23/2020. Data from 06/22/2020 was processed on 06/23/2020 at 3:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed with the data for 06/23/2020.

A network outage on 05/19/2020 resulted in a change in the data pull schedule. Data from 5/19/2020 was processed on 05/20/2020 at 12:00 PM. Data from 5/20/2020 was processed on 5/20/2020 8:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed on 05/20/2020 with the 8:30 PM data pull. As a result of the network outage, the timestamp on the datasets on the Open Data Portal differ from the timestamp in DPH's daily PDF reports.

Starting 5/10/2021, the date field will represent the date this data was updated on data.ct.gov. Previously the date the data was pulled by DPH was listed, which typically coincided with the date before the data was published on data.ct.gov. This change was made to standardize the COVID-19 data sets on data.ct.gov.

DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve. The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj. The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 . The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 . The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed. COVID-19 cases, tests, and associated deaths from COVID-19 that have been reported among Connecticut residents. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the daily COVID-19 update. The case rate per 100,000 includes probable and confirmed cases. Probable and confirmed are defined using the CSTE case definition, which is available online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/2020ps/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID-19.pdf The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used. Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 CO

Mapping Layer Data Released: 06/15/2017, | Last Updated 04/20/2024Data Currency: This data is checked semi-annually from it's enterprise federal source fo 2010 CENSUS Data and will support mapping, analysis, data exports and the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Application Programming Interface (API).Data Update Frequency: Twice, YearlyData Cycle | History (as required below)QA/QC Performed: December, 2024Next Scheduled Data QA/QC: July, 2024CDC PLACES (2010 CENSUS) FEATURE LAYERData Requester: Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and Human Service (OHHS) via Health Equity Institute (HEI).Data Requester: Rhode Island Department of Health, Maternal Child Health via Health Equity Institute (HEI).Data Request: Provide a database deliverable via download that contains both US CENSUS tracts and USPS Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA).HEALTH EQUITY INSTITUTE DATA CONNECT RI Using Modern GIS (Mapping)🡅 Click IT 🡅Facilitate transformative mapping visualizations that engage constituents and measure the impact of real-world solutions.Instructions to Join Your Data Provided Below STEP 1: Video (Pending)STEP 2: Video (Pending)STEP 3: Video (Pending)There are twenty-two U.S. CENSUS fields (download here) that you can join to your datasets. For additional insight, please contact the Center for Health Data and Analysis (CHDA) Rhode Island Department of Health (GIS) Mapping Department for assistance.Database Enhancement: This database contains two (2) additional data fields for consideration to be added to the existing 2020 State of Rhode Island Health Equity Map.Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA)ZCTA/Tract Relationship (Singular ZCTAs per Tract, versus Multiple ZCTAs per Tract)Additional Information: While ZCTAs can be useful for certain qualitative purposes, such as broad or general high level analysis, they may not provide the level of granularity and accuracy required for in-depth demographic research which is required for policy mapping. ZCTAs can change frequently as the US Postal Service (USPS) adjusts postal routes and boundaries. These changes can lead to inconsistencies and challenges in tracking demographic trends and making accurate comparisons over time.RIDOH GIS encourages analysts to make the appropriate choice of using census based data, with their consistent boundaries readily available for suitability for spatial analysis when conducting detailed demographic research.Here are a few reasons why you might want to consider using census based data (tracts, block groups, and blocks) instead of ZCTAs:1. Inaccurate Representations: ZCTAs are not designed for statistical analysis or demographic research. They are created by the United States Postal Service (USPS) for efficient mail delivery and can often span multiple cities, counties, or even states. As a result, ZCTAs may not accurately represent the actual geographic boundaries or demographic characteristics of a specific area.2. Lack of Granularity: ZCTAs are typically larger than census tracts, which are smaller, more homogeneous geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Census tracts are designed to be relatively consistent in terms of population size, allowing for more detailed analysis at a local level. ZCTAs, on the other hand, can vary significantly in terms of population size, making it challenging to draw precise conclusions about specific neighborhoods or communities.3. Data Availability and Compatibility: Census tracts are used by the U.S. Census Bureau to collect and report demographic data. Consequently, a wide range of demographic information, such as population counts, age distribution, income levels, and education levels, is readily available at the census tract level. In contrast, data specifically tailored to ZCTAs may be more limited, making it difficult to obtain comprehensive and consistent data for demographic analysis.4. Changes Over Time: Census tracts are relatively stable over time, allowing for consistent longitudinal analysis. ZCTAs, however, can change frequently as the USPS adjusts postal routes and boundaries. These changes can lead to inconsistencies and challenges in tracking demographic trends and making accurate comparisons over time.5. Spatial Analysis: Census tracts are designed to maintain a level of spatial proximity, adjacency, or connectedness of these data containers while providing consistency and continuity over time - making them useful for spatial analysis. Mapping. ZCTAs, on the other hand, may not exhibit the same level of spatial coherence due to their primary purpose being mail delivery efficiency rather than geographic representation.State Agencies - Contact RIDOH GIS - Learn More About Mapping Data Available at the Census Tract LevelRIDOH GIS releases this database with the caveats noted above and that the researcher can accurately align the ZCTAs with the corresponding census tracts. Careful consideration should be given to the comparability and compatibility of the data collected at different geographic levels to ensure valid and meaningful statistical conclusions. Data Dictionary: 2010 Decennial CensusOBJECT ID - the count of each census tract entity.GEOID (10) STATE,COUNTY,TRACT - Numeric US CENSUS Tract Description (2010) HEZ (10) - Health Equity Zone (2020)LOCATION (10) - Plain Language Census Tract Descriptor (2010)COUNTY (10) NAME - County Name (2010)STATE (10) NAME - State Name (2010)ZCTA (23) - Zip Code Tabulation Area - Numeric US CENSUS ZCTA Description (2023)ZCTA/TRACT CONTEXT - Number of ZCTAs (Singular/Multiple) that reside within a US CENSUS TractST (10) - Numeric US CENSUS Tract Description (2010) CO (10) - Numeric US CENSUS Tract Description (2010)ST (10) CO (10) - Numeric US CENSUS Tract Description (2010)TRACT (10) - Numeric US CENSUS Tract Description (2010)GEOID (10) - Numeric US CENSUS Tract Description (2010)TRIBAL TRACT (10) - Numeric US CENSUS Tract Description (2010)Additional Mapping DataThe user is provided authoritative Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) such as numeric descriptions of state, county and tract identification, in addition to shape and length measurements of each census tract for data joining purposes.STATE (10) - Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)COUNTY (10) - Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)STATE (10), COUNTY (10) - Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)TRACT (10) - Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)TRIBAL TRACT (10) - Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)ST ABBRV (10) - State AbbreviationShape_Length - Total length of the polygon's (census tract) perimeter, in the units used by the feature class' coordinate system.Shape_Area - Total area of the polygon's (census tract) in the units used by the feature class' coordinate system.Data Source: Series Information for 2020 Census 5-Digit ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA5) National TIGER/Line Shapefiles, Current Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Application Programming Interface (API) Census ZIP Code Tabulation Areas - OGC Features copy this link to embed it in OGC Compliant viewers. For more information, please visit: ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs)To Report Data Discrepancies Contact the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) GIS (mapping) OfficePlease Be Certain To --Provide a Brief Description of What the Discrepancy IsInclude Your, Name, Organization, Telephone NumberAttach the Complete .xlsx with the Discrepancy Highlighted

This data set shows the Tag number, Quadrat location, Species code, diameter and XY coordinates of stems >=10 cm D130 present at the time of Hurricane Hugo and in the first census. The data set is composed of two files both with the same file structure. In LFDP_C1treemap.txt the diameters (Fdiam) are as recorded in the field data. In LFDP_C1TREEMAPa.txt the stem diameters (Fdiam) were calculated to allocate "missed" stems (stems >=10 cm D130) that were found in survey 2, 3 or Census 2 to Census 1 survey 1. We calculated the diameter the stem would have had, if it had been recorded at the same time the quadrat it was located in was assessed, in the appropriate survey for that stem size. To extrapolate the stem size back in time, we used the actual growth rate of that individual stem if more than one measurement was available. If only one diameter measurement was available we used the median growth rate for that species in the appropriate size class stems >=10, <30 cm D130). In our publications we will combine data sets LFDP_C1treemap.txt and LFDP_C1TREEMAPa.txt to make Census 1 and to reconstruct the forest for stems >= 10 cm D130 at the time of Hurricane Hugo. We have divided the data into two separate files to ensure that when stem diameters are compared to future censuses the diameter data in LFDP_C1TREEMAPa.txt are not used to calculate growth rates. The last corrections to the Census 1 data were made in May 2001. The National Science Foundation requires that data from projects it funds are posted on the web two years after any data set has been organized and "cleaned". The data from each census of the LFDP will be updated at intervals as each survey of the LFDP shows errors in the previous data collection. After posting on the web, researchers who are not part of the project are then welcome to use the data. Given the enormous amount of time, effort and resources required to manage the LFDP, obtain these data, and ensure data accuracy, LFDP Principal Investigators request that researchers intending to use this data comply with the requests below. Through complying with these requests we can ensure that the data are interpreted correctly, analyses are not repeated unnecessarily, beneficial collaboration between users is promoted and the Principle Investigators investment in this project is protected. Submit to the LFDP PIs a short (1 page) description of how you intend to use the data; · Invite LFDP PIs to be co-authors on any publication that uses the data in a substantial way (some PIs may decline and other LFDP scientists may need to be included); If the LFDP PIs are not co-authors, send the PIs a draft of any paper using LFDP data, so that the PIs may comment upon it; In the methods section of any publication using LFDP data, describe that data as coming from the "Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot, part of the Luquillo Experimental Forest Long-Term Ecological Research Program"; Acknowledge in any publication using LFDP data the "The Luquillo Experimental Forest Long-Term Ecological Research Program, supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the University of Puerto Rico, and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry"; · Supply the LFDP PIs with 10 reprints of any publication using LFDP data. · Accept that the LFDP PIs can not guarantee that the LFDP data you intend to use, has not already been submitted for publication or published.

As part of a scientific assessment of critical habitat for boreal woodland caribou (Environment Canada 2011, see full reference in accompanying documentation), Environment Canada's Landscape Science and Technology Division was tasked with providing detailed anthropogenic disturbance mapping across known caribou ranges. This data allowed researchers to better understand the attributes that have a known effect on caribou population persistence. The mapping process was established to create a nationally consistent, reliable and repeatable geospatial dataset that followed a common methodology. The methods developed were focused on mapping disturbances at a specific point of time, and were not designed to identify the age of disturbances, which can be of particular interest for disturbances that can be considered non-permanent, for example cutblocks. The resultant datasets were used for caribou resource selection function,habitat modeling, and assess overall disturbance levels on each caribou ranges. Anthropogenic disturbances within 57 caribou ranges across Canada were mapped. The ranges were defined by individual Provinces and Territories across Canada. Disturbances were mapped across these ranges using 2008-2010 Landsat-5 satellite imagery to provide the most up to date data possible. Originally some areas were mapped to match the date of collected caribou demographic data, however more recent imagery was used and additional disturbance features that were seen since the original mapping date were added. Within the context of this project, anthropogenic disturbance was defined as any human-caused disturbance to the natural landscape that could be visually identified from Landsat imagery at a viewing scale of 1:50,000. A minimum mapping unit (MMU) of 2 ha or approximately 22 contiguous Landsat pixels was selected. Each disturbance feature type was represented in the database by a line or polygon depending on their geometric description. Polygonal disturbances included: cutblocks, mines, reservoirs, built-up areas, well sites, agriculture, oil and gas facilities, as well as unknown features. Linear disturbances included: roads, railways, powerlines, seismic exploration lines, pipelines, dams, air strips, as well as unknown features. For each anthropogenic feature type, a clear description was established (see Appendix 7.2 of the science assessment) to maintain consistency in identifying the various disturbances in the imagery by the different interpreters. Various ancillary vector datasets were used as aids in detecting, classifying and digitizing disturbances on the Landsat imagery (a table listing these datasets and their sources has been included in a separate file). Ancillary data was used to guide interpretation and feature labelling since the ancillary data was often variable across the country in terms of completeness as well as scale. As a result, features were only digitized if they were visible in the Landsat imagery at a viewing scale of 1:50,000. A 2nd interpreter quality control phase was carried out to ensure high quality, completete and consistent data collection. A quality assessment analysis, since an actual accuracy assessment was not possible, using high resolution SPOT imagery was carried out on a sample basis. Results are included in accompanying documentation. The vector data was buffered by 500m (radius) representing the zone of influence impacting boreal caribou herds in order to calculate range disturbance levels as well as for use in the integrated risk assessment analysis. Fire polygons were merged into the anthropogenic footprint in order to create an overall disturbance footprint. Supplemental Information :Wildlife Research and Landscape Science: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/wildlife-research-landscape-science.html

Which county has the most Facebook users?

              There are more than 378 million Facebook users in India alone, making it the leading country in terms of Facebook audience size. To put this into context, if India’s Facebook audience were a country then it would be ranked third in terms of largest population worldwide. Apart from India, there are several other markets with more than 100 million Facebook users each: The United States, Indonesia, and Brazil with 193.8 million, 119.05 million, and 112.55 million Facebook users respectively.

              Facebook – the most used social media

              Meta, the company that was previously called Facebook, owns four of the most popular social media platforms worldwide, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Facebook, and Instagram. As of the third quarter of 2021, there were around 3,5 billion cumulative monthly users of the company’s products worldwide. With around 2.9 billion monthly active users, Facebook is the most popular social media worldwide. With an audience of this scale, it is no surprise that the vast majority of Facebook’s revenue is generated through advertising.

              Facebook usage by device
              As of July 2021, it was found that 98.5 percent of active users accessed their Facebook account from mobile devices. In fact, almost 81.8 percent of Facebook audiences worldwide access the platform only via mobile phone. Facebook is not only available through mobile browser as the company has published several mobile apps for users to access their products and services. As of the third quarter 2021, the four core Meta products were leading the ranking of most downloaded mobile apps worldwide, with WhatsApp amassing approximately six billion downloads.

File LFDP_CENSUS1 contains data for the Census 1 (Survey 1,2,and 3) of the LFDP including the Tag number Species code, quadrat location and date and stem diameter D130 (diameter measured at 130 cm from the ground (DBH). It also contains the diameter as recorded for all stems in survey 1, 2 and 3. LFDP_CENSUS1a has the same structure as LFDP_census1. In LFDP_census1a file, however, the stem diameters have been calculated to allocate "missed" stems that were found in survey 2, 3 or Census 2 to either Census 1 survey 1 (stems >=10 cm D130) or Census 1 survey 3 (stems >=1, <10 cm D130). We calculated the diameter the stem would have had, if it had been recorded at the same time the quadrat it was located in was assessed, in the appropriate survey for that stem size. To extrapolate the stem size back in time, we used the actual growth rate of that individual stem if more than one measurement was available. If only one diameter measurement was available we used the median growth rate for that species in the appropriate size class (median growthrate of stems <10 cm, or median for stems >=10, <30 cm D130). In our publications we will combine data sets LFDP_census1 and LFDP_census1a to make Census 1 and to reconstruct the forest for stems >= 10 cm D130 at the time of Hurricane Hugo. We have divided the data into two separate files to ensure that when stem diameters are compared to future censuses the diameter data in LFDP_census1a is not used to calculate growth rates. The dates in LFDP_census1a show the date at which the real diameter was measured in survey 2 or 3 and not the time that the calculated diameter (Fdiam sur1/s2/s3) represents for the quadrat in which the stem was located. Blank in the date field in LFDP_census1a means that the tree was first measured in Census 2 and the diameter given (Fdiam sur1/s2/s3) was extrapolated back in time to Census 1. The last corrections to the Census 1 data were made in May 2001. The National Science Foundation requires that data from projects it funds are posted on the web two years after any data set has been organized and "cleaned". The data from each census of the LFDP will be updated at intervals, as each survey of the LFDP shows errors in the previous data collection. After posting on the web, researchers who are not part of the project are then welcome to use the data. Given the enormous amount of time, effort and resources required to manage the LFDP, obtain these data, and ensure data accuracy, LFDP Principal Investigators request that researchers intending to use this data comply with the requests below. Through complying with these requests we can ensure that the data are interpreted correctly, analyses are not repeated unnecessarily, beneficial collaboration between users is promoted and the Principal Investigators' investment in this project is protected. : · Submit to the LFDP PIs a short (1 page) description of how you intend to use the data; · Invite LFDP PIs to be co-authors on any publication that uses the data in a substantial way (some PIs may decline and other LFDP scientists may need to be included); · If the LFDP PIs are not co-authors, send the PIs a draft of any paper using LFDP data, so that the PIs may comment upon it; · In the methods section of any publication using LFDP data, describe that data as coming from the "Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot, part of the Luquillo Experimental Forest Long-Term Ecological Research Program"; · Acknowledge in any publication using LFDP data the "The Luquillo Experimental Forest Long-Term Ecological Research Program, supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the University of Puerto Rico, and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry"; · Supply the LFDP PIs with 10 reprints of any publication using LFDP data; · Accept that the LFDP PIs can not guarantee that the LFDP data you intend to use has not already been submitted for publication or published.

The “natural resources sensitivity” symbolizes the ecosystem vitality and degree of conservation in 2010. Deforestation and loss of water resources quality may render certain areas more sensitive to climate stressors on account of the loss of normal vegetation cover, the depletion of biodiversity, the reduction in ecosystem services and significant loss of beneficial assets. The index results from the first cluster of the Principal Component Analysis preformed among 16 potential variables. The analysis identify five dominant variables, namely “water availability per capita”, “net primary production”, “forest accessibility”, “vegetation continuity” and “climatic resources availability”, assigning respectively the weights of 0.19, 0.21, 0.165, 0.21 and 0.225. Before to perform the analysis the variables “water availability per capita”, “forest accessibility” and “vegetation continuity” were log transformed to shorten the extreme variation and then together with the other two variables were score-standardized (converted to distribution with average of 0 and standard deviation of 1; all variables with inverse method) in order to be comparable. The 6 arc-minute grid “water availability per capita” of 2005 was computed by sum of the run-off and discharge grids produced by World Water Development Report II and then sampled at 0.5 arc-minutes. A focal statistic ran with a radius of 55 cells (about 50 Km). This had a smoothing effect and represents some of the extend influence of major rivers as a resources for local people. To calculate the available water per capita it was then divided by the population. The 5 arc-minute grid “net primary production” of 2000 was gathered from FAO GeoNetwork and sampled at 0.5 arc-minute. Also in this case a focal statistic ran with a radius of 22 cells (about 20 Km) in order to represents the extend effect of primary production as natural resources for local people. The 0.5 arc-minute grid “forest accessibility” was build using the grid of travel distance in minutes to large cities (which one with population greater than 50,000 people), produced by the European Commission and the World Bank to represent the connectivity in 2000, and the grid of forest occurrence, extracted from the FAO Global Land Cover-SHARE dataset of 2014. The result measures the distance in minutes between forest and cities, thus is a proxy for remoteness and naturalness of forest. The 0.125 arc-minute grid “vegetation continuity” of 2010 were collected from University of Maryland and NASA and sampled at 0.5 arc-minute. A focal statistic ran with a radius of 55 cells (about 50 Km). This had a smoothing effect and represents some of the extend influence of vegetation concentration as a resources for local people. Finally the 0.5 arc-minute grid “climatic resources availability” was produced within the ClimAfrica project. The “water availability per capita” represents the potential water available per people in a certain area. We can consider the area with small values more sensitive to climatic stress, because lack a buffer of water resources, precious in a prevalently rain-fed agricultural system like in Africa. The “net primary production” and the “vegetation continuity” are proxies of the potential vegetal productivity available in a certain area. Moreover “vegetation continuity” is an indicator of abundance of natural ecosystem services that can reduce the sensitivity of human-environment systems. The “forest accessibility” assessing the distance between human and natural system measure the anthropogenic degree of a forest. A forest recording a high anthropogenic degree (thus near in terms of minute from a city) may potentially be threaded by human activity and thus represent a fragile ecosystem. Finally the “climatic resources availability” is an indicator of the climatic potential for biomass production. It is based on the climatically determined biomass productivity index that is a proxy for the atmospheric energy available for biomass production, as expressed by accumulated temperature, adjusted for drought stress. This dataset has been produced in the framework of the “Climate change predictions in Sub-Saharan Africa: impacts and adaptations (ClimAfrica)” project, Work Package 4 (WP4). More information on ClimAfrica project is provided in the Supplemental Information section of this metadata.

Data publication: 2014-09-01

Supplemental Information:

ClimAfrica was an international project funded by European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) for the period 2010-2014. The ClimAfrica consortium was formed by 18 institutions, 9 from Europe, 8 from Africa, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO).

ClimAfrica was conceived to respond to the urgent international need for the most appropriate and up-to-date tools and methodologies to better understand and predict climate change, assess its impact on African ecosystems and population, and develop the correct adaptation strategies. Africa is probably the most vulnerable continent to climate change and climate variability and shows diverse range of agro-ecological and geographical features. Thus the impacts of climate change can be very high and can greatly differ across the continent, and even within countries.

The project focused on the following specific objectives:

1. Develop improved climate predictions on seasonal to decadal climatic scales, especially relevant to SSA;

2. Assess climate impacts in key sectors of SSA livelihood and economy, especially water resources and agriculture;

3. Evaluate the vulnerability of ecosystems and civil population to inter-annual variations and longer trends (10 years) in climate;

4. Suggest and analyse new suited adaptation strategies, focused on local needs;

5. Develop a new concept of 10 years monitoring and forecasting warning system, useful for food security, risk management and civil protection in SSA;

6. Analyse the economic impacts of climate change on agriculture and water resources in SSA and the cost-effectiveness of potential adaptation measures.

The work of ClimAfrica project was broken down into the following work packages (WPs) closely connected. All the activities described in WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5 consider the domain of the entire South Sahara Africa region. Only WP6 has a country specific (watershed) spatial scale where models validation and detailed processes analysis are carried out.

Contact points:

Metadata Contact: FAO-Data

Resource Contact: Selvaraju Ramasamy

Resource constraints:

copyright

Online resources:

Natural resources sensitivity index (2010)

Project deliverable D4.1 - Scenarios of major production systems in Africa

Climafrica Website - Climate Change Predictions In Sub-Saharan Africa: Impacts And Adaptations