This dataset provides values for POPULATION reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

The empirical dataset is derived from a survey carried out on 25 estates in 14 cities in nine different European countries: France (Lyon), Germany (Berlin), Hungary (Budapest and Nyiregyha´za), Italy (Milan), the Netherlands (Amsterdam and Utrecht), Poland (Warsaw), Slovenia (Ljubljana and Koper), Spain (Barcelona and Madrid), and Sweden (Jo¨nko¨ping and Stockholm). The survey was part of the EU RESTATE project (Musterd & Van Kempen, 2005). A similar survey was constructed for all 25 estates.

The survey was carried out between February and June 2004. In each case, a random sample was drawn, usually from the whole estate. For some estates, address lists were used as the basis for the sample; in other cases, the researchers first had to take a complete inventory of addresses themselves (for some deviations from this general trend and for an overview of response rates, see Musterd & Van Kempen, 2005). In most cities, survey teams were hired to carry out the survey. They worked under the supervision of the RESTATE partners. Briefings were organised to instruct the survey teams. In some cases (for example, in Amsterdam and Utrecht), interviewers were recruited from specific ethnic groups in order to increase the response rate among, for example, the Turkish and Moroccan residents on the estates. In other cases, family members translated questions during a face-to-face interview. The interviewers with an immigrant background were hired in those estates where this made sense. In some estates it was not necessary to do this because the number of immigrants was (close to) zero (as in most cases in CE Europe).

The questionnaire could be completed by the respondents themselves, but also by the interviewers in a face-to-face interview.

Data and Representativeness

The data file contains 4756 respondents. Nearly all respondents indicated their satisfaction with the dwelling and the estate. Originally, the data file also contained cases from the UK.

However, UK respondents were excluded from the analyses because of doubts about the reliability of the answers to the ethnic minority questions. This left 25 estates in nine countries. In general, older people and original populations are somewhat over-represented, while younger people and immigrant populations are relatively under-represented, despite the fact that in estates with a large minority population surveyors were also employed from minority ethnic groups. For younger people, this discrepancy probably derives from the extent of their activities outside the home, making them more difficult to reach. The under-representation of the immigrant population is presumably related to language and cultural differences. For more detailed information on the representation of population in each case, reference is made to the reports of the researchers in the different countries which can be downloaded from the programme website. All country reports indicate that despite these over- and under-representations, the survey results are valuable for the analyses of their own individual situation.

This dataset is the result of a team effort lead by Professor Ronald van Kempen, Utrecht University with funding from the EU Fifth Framework.

This dataset is a research outcome of a European Research Council, Starting Grant funded (Grant Number 679097, Industrialisation and Urban Growth from the mid-nineteenth century Ottoman Empire to Contemporary Turkey in a Comparative Perspective, 1850-2000, UrbanOccupationsOETR) project. It contains a mid-nineteenth-century urban Ottoman population micro dataset for the city of Bursa.

In recent decades, a "big microdata revolution" has revolutionized access to transcribed historical census data for social science research. Despite this, the population records of the Ottoman Empire, spanning Southeastern Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa, remained absent from the big microdata ecosystem due to their prolonged inaccessibility. In fact, like other modernizing states in the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire started to enumerate its population in population registers (nüfus defterleri) in 1830, which recorded only males of all ages for conscription and taxation purposes. These registers were completed and updated in two waves, one in 1830-1838 and the other in the 1839-1865 period. Following this experience, the Empire implemented its first modern census, which included females, in 1881/1882 for more comprehensive statistical and governance reasons to converge with European census-taking practices and account for the increasing participation of females in economic and social spheres.

The pre-census population registers were opened to researchers in 2011. There are around 11.000 registers today. The microdata of the late Ottoman censuses is still not available. Still, unfortunately, the majority of the existing literature using the population registers superficially utilized and failed to tabulate the microdata. Most works using these valuable sources contented with transcribing the microdata from Ottoman to Latin script and presenting their data in raw and unstyled fashion without publishing them in a separate repository.

Our dataset marks the inaugural release of complete population data for an Ottoman urban center, the city of Bursa, derived from the 1839 population registers. It presents originally non-tabulated register data in a tabular format integrated into a relational Microsoft Access database. To ensure that our dataset is more accessible, we are also releasing the dataset in Microsoft Excel format.

The city of Bursa, a major cosmopolitan commercial hub in modern northwestern Turkey, is selected from the larger UrbanOccupationsOETR project database as an exemplary case to represent the volume, value, variety, and veracity of the population data. Furthermore, since urban areas are usually the most densely populated locations that attract the most migration in any country, they are attractive locations for multifold reasons in historical demography. Bursa is not the only urban location in the UrbanOccupationsOETR database. As it focused on urbanization and occupational structural change, it collected the population microdata on major urban centers (chosen as primary locations) and towns (denoted as secondary locations), which pioneered the economic development of post-Ottoman nation-states. What makes the city of Bursa’s data more advantageous than other cities is that it has been cleaned and validated multiple times and used elsewhere for demographic and economic analyses.

The Ottoman population registers of 1830 and 1839 classified the population under the commonly and officially recognized ethnoreligious identities- Muslim, Orthodox Christian, Armenian, Catholic, Jewish, and (Muslim and non-Muslim) Roma. Muslim and non-Muslim populations were counted in separate registers. The registers were organized along spatial and temporal lines. The standard unit of the register was the quarter (mahalle) in urban and village (karye) in rural settings. Within these register units, populated public and non-household spaces such as inns, dervish lodges, monasteries, madrasas, coffeehouses, bakeries, mills, pastures (of nomads), and large private farms (çiftlik) were recorded separately.

The household (menzil/hane) was the unit of entry, which sometimes took different forms depending on the context, such as the room for inns and the tent for nomads. Each household recorded its members on a horizontal line. The variables of male individuals inhabiting them were self-reported biographical information (names, titles/family names, ages, and occupations), physical description (height and facial hair), relationships with other household members (kinship, tenancy, and employment ties), infirmities, and military and poll tax status, including the reasons for exemption, military post, and poll tax category (high-ala, medium-evsat, and small-edna). Households with no inhabitants were differentiated. At the same time, if a resident was known to be absent during registration due to reasons such as military service or migration, he was recorded in his household with a note stating that reason. If he was missing and appeared later, he was added to the household during updates with a note like “not recorded previously” (e.g., hin-i tahrirde taşrada olub) or “newly recorded” (tahrir-mande).

In addition to the permanent residents of a given location, migrant/temporary non-local (yabancı) residents such as laborers, inn-stayers, and unskilled bachelors (bî-kâr) were recorded along with their place of origin and for how long they had been in the migrated place. Non-Muslim migrants were registered with information regarding the last location where they got their poll tax certificate and if they would make their next poll tax payment in the migrated location.

Updates were made mainly to births, deaths, migrations, and military and poll tax status. No other variables, such as age, were renewed except for occupations in a limited number of cases. Updates are easily identifiable since they were written in siyakat, a special Ottoman chancery shorthand script, and occasionally in red ink. Births were specified with newborns’ names added next to the father’s entry. Deaths were updated by crossing out the deceased person’s record. Migrations were added with a description of the migrated place (including the military branch if the person was conscripted). Military and poll tax status was updated by crossing out the old category and adding the new one next to it. Updates were usually expressed in hijri years, sometimes in month-year, and rarely in day-month-year fashion. It is important to note that since updates were made once every few months, these dates may reflect their registration date rather than giving the exact time of the events. Equally crucial is that many events, especially births, were not reported, so their quality is limited.

Modeled after the way information was contained in the population registers, this relational database has two tables, “tblHouse” and “tblIndividual.” Each table categorizes and standardizes the register variables. To make the data easier to use, the dataset also includes a query “Query_InnerJoin” that combines all the variables from each table in a separate sheet.

Given Bursa’s important place in Ottoman history, our dataset serves as a large and crucial resource for comprehending historical societal, economic, and demographic trends within the Empire in the early stages of globalization. The dataset has 8391 household entries (HouseID) and 19,186 individual (IndivID) entries. This data includes the population registered in all of Bursa’s quarters and other location categories in 1839 and the updates until and including 1843 (Figure 2). The ethno-religious breakdown of the total population is 12462 Muslims (65%), 3315 Armenians (17%), 2466 Orthodox Christians (13%), 749 Jews (4%), and 194 Catholics (1%).

To broaden access and use of our data and bring it more in line with findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) data guidelines, the variables of “tblHouse” and “tblIndividual” are sorted into general categories and described in detail in the following tables. As the variables indicate, the dataset and population registers, in general, could serve to formulate unprecedented, hitherto impossible research questions related to major demographic dynamics, i.e., household size and composition, ethnoreligious differences, population density, occupational structure, intergenerational mobility and status transfer, mortality, fertility, migration, age-heaping/human capital, conscription, settlement patterns within and across urban locations, onomastics, toponymy, etc.

Table 1: Categories and descriptions of the variables of tblHouse

The Spring 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Survey collected public opinion data across 15 nations, including oversamples of European Muslim populations in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain. This dataset allows for comparative analysis of attitudes among both general populations and Muslim minorities in Europe, with specialized weights and filters provided. The survey covers a wide range of international, political, and social issues. Samples in some countries (China, India, Pakistan) were disproportionately urban, and Nigeria’s sample includes both Christians and Muslims. Methodological appendices provide details on sample design, weighting, and representativeness.

While countries applied different strategies in order to prevent a further spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, the measures found a varying degree of support within their countries populations. The goal of this study is to explore the relationship between people’s attitudes on the COVID-19 measures and the policies strictness. This questionnaire was distributed in Switzerland and Germany, and provides a binational comparison regarding the relation between COVID-19 policies and their respective public opinion. In detail, the following research questions are explored: 1. How do public attitudes differ between the Swiss and German population on respective, national COVID-19 policies? 2. Is there a change over time in the attitude of the two populations towards non-compliance? To answer the research questions we ran an online survey in July 2020 and May 2021 after the first and second wave of COVID-19 incidences. A total of 127 participants were asked to answer a total of 40 questions using a visual analog scale to identify the attitude towards COVID-19 policies. Further data on the participants’ information sources, health status and demographics were collected. In the analysis, the participants attitudes were compared with the COVID-19 policies that were in force at the time in the respective country. A series of independent one-tailed t-tests with a significance level of α= 0.05 were used to identify significant differences within a binational comparison. Bonferroni-correction was used to control for the bias due to multiple comparisons. Furthermore, the temporal development of the collected attitudes for both countries were explored by computing a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-Test.

European Union Imports from United States was US$355.76 Billion during 2024, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. European Union Imports from United States - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on September of 2025.

The Common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) has declined by more than 99% in the westernmost part of its range in Belgium, the Netherlands and the adjacent German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia (BNN region) in the second half of the 20th century. To detect a decline in genetic variation as a result of inbreeding and genetic drift we have measured the genetic variation in current BNN hamster populations and compared the outcome with the genetic variation in museum samples from the historical, non-fragmented, population.Most of the current populations have lost the majority of their rare alleles and individual animals have become nearly homozygous. The total gene diversity of the remaining small populations combined is not much less than that of the historical population. Hence, the main genetic difference between historical and present is not in terms of total genetic variation or number of alleles in the BNN region, but in the distribution of this variation over the populations.SamplesThis study is based on 250 DNA samples from hamster populations in the BNN region (n=85) and reference populations in France (n=68) and a population in Central Germany (n=97).The samples from the BNN region consisted of 52 samples from the five currently surviving populations in Belgium, the Netherlands and North Rhine–Westphalia and 33 samples from museum specimens.The museum samples consisted of pieces of dried skin, sometimes including hairs, that were taken from museum specimens that were collected or found in the wild in Belgium and the Netherlands during the period 1925-1985; 85% of the specimens were collected before 1970. In total 51 museum specimens from the museums of natural history in Leiden (Naturalis, the Netherlands) and Brussels (KBIN, Belgium) were sampled, but only 33 samples provided sufficient enough DNA for PCR amplification. The technical analysis of museum and current samples is described in detail in Neumann & Jansman (2004). Each museum sample was assigned either to the historical hamster population of Belgium (n=8) or to the historical population of the Netherlands (n=25).GenotypingAll samples were genotyped for a maximum of 11 microsatellite loci: Ccrμ3, Ccrμ4, Ccrμ6, Ccrμ10, Ccrμ11, Ccrμ12, Ccrμ13, Ccrμ15, Ccrμ17, Ccrμ19, and Ccrμ20. However, in our study we used only 9 of the 11 available microsatellites because there were too many missing values at loci Ccrμ6 and/or Ccrμ19, especially in the museum samples. Museum samples with less than 6 known loci were excluded from the analysis. Almost half of the 33 museum samples showed missing values (n=17, 51%), with 8 samples missing 1 locus, 8 samples missing 2 loci and 1 sample missing 3 loci.Each row is a genotype from an individual.The dataset has the following columns:A) Population per country and periodB) Unique individual numberC) Population: historical or recentD-Y) alleles per locus for each individualZ) Specific sample location (in the wild)AA) Populations (assigned to)AB) Origin (wild)AC) Year of collectionAD) Country

In 2019, there were approximately 302,020 British citizens living in Spain, with a further 293,061 in Ireland and 176,672 in France. By comparison, there were only 604 British people living in Slovenia, the fewest of any European Union member state. As a member of the European Union, British citizens had the right to live and work in any EU member state. Although these rights were lost for most British citizens after the UK left the EU in 2020, Britons already living in EU states were able to largely retain their previous rights of residence. EU citizens living in the UK EU citizens living in the UK face the same dilemma that British nationals did regarding their legal status after Brexit. In the same year, there were 902,000 Polish citizens, 404,000 Romanians, and 322,000 people from the Republic of Ireland living in the UK in that year, along with almost two million EU citizens from the other 24 EU member states. To retain their rights after Brexit, EU citizens living in the UK were able to apply for the EU settlement scheme. As of 2025, there have been around 8.4 million applications to this scheme, with Romanian and Polish nationals the most common nationality at 1.87 million applications, and 1.27 million applications respectively. Is support for Brexit waning in 2024? As of 2025, the share of people in the UK who think leaving the EU was the wrong decision stood at 56 percent, compared with 31 percent who think it was the correct choice. In general, support for Brexit has declined since April 2021, when 46 percent of people supported Brexit, compared with 43 percent who regretted it. What people think Britain's relationship with the EU should be is, however, still unclear. A survey from November 2023 indicated that just 31 percent thought the UK should rejoin the EU, with a further 11 percent supporting rejoining the single market but not the EU. Only ten percent of respondents were satisfied with the current relationship, while nine percent wished to reduce ties even further.

How many people use social media?

              Social media usage is one of the most popular online activities. In 2024, over five billion people were using social media worldwide, a number projected to increase to over six billion in 2028.

              Who uses social media?
              Social networking is one of the most popular digital activities worldwide and it is no surprise that social networking penetration across all regions is constantly increasing. As of January 2023, the global social media usage rate stood at 59 percent. This figure is anticipated to grow as lesser developed digital markets catch up with other regions
              when it comes to infrastructure development and the availability of cheap mobile devices. In fact, most of social media’s global growth is driven by the increasing usage of mobile devices. Mobile-first market Eastern Asia topped the global ranking of mobile social networking penetration, followed by established digital powerhouses such as the Americas and Northern Europe.

              How much time do people spend on social media?
              Social media is an integral part of daily internet usage. On average, internet users spend 151 minutes per day on social media and messaging apps, an increase of 40 minutes since 2015. On average, internet users in Latin America had the highest average time spent per day on social media.

              What are the most popular social media platforms?
              Market leader Facebook was the first social network to surpass one billion registered accounts and currently boasts approximately 2.9 billion monthly active users, making it the most popular social network worldwide. In June 2023, the top social media apps in the Apple App Store included mobile messaging apps WhatsApp and Telegram Messenger, as well as the ever-popular app version of Facebook.

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.

During a 2024 survey, 77 percent of respondents from Nigeria stated that they used social media as a source of news. In comparison, just 23 percent of Japanese respondents said the same. Large portions of social media users around the world admit that they do not trust social platforms either as media sources or as a way to get news, and yet they continue to access such networks on a daily basis.

              Social media: trust and consumption

              Despite the majority of adults surveyed in each country reporting that they used social networks to keep up to date with news and current affairs, a 2018 study showed that social media is the least trusted news source in the world. Less than 35 percent of adults in Europe considered social networks to be trustworthy in this respect, yet more than 50 percent of adults in Portugal, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia said that they got their news on social media.

              What is clear is that we live in an era where social media is such an enormous part of daily life that consumers will still use it in spite of their doubts or reservations. Concerns about fake news and propaganda on social media have not stopped billions of users accessing their favorite networks on a daily basis.
              Most Millennials in the United States use social media for news every day, and younger consumers in European countries are much more likely to use social networks for national political news than their older peers.
              Like it or not, reading news on social is fast becoming the norm for younger generations, and this form of news consumption will likely increase further regardless of whether consumers fully trust their chosen network or not.

How much time do people spend on social media?

              As of 2024, the average daily social media usage of internet users worldwide amounted to 143 minutes per day, down from 151 minutes in the previous year. Currently, the country with the most time spent on social media per day is Brazil, with online users spending an average of three hours and 49 minutes on social media each day. In comparison, the daily time spent with social media in
              the U.S. was just two hours and 16 minutes. Global social media usageCurrently, the global social network penetration rate is 62.3 percent. Northern Europe had an 81.7 percent social media penetration rate, topping the ranking of global social media usage by region. Eastern and Middle Africa closed the ranking with 10.1 and 9.6 percent usage reach, respectively.
              People access social media for a variety of reasons. Users like to find funny or entertaining content and enjoy sharing photos and videos with friends, but mainly use social media to stay in touch with current events friends. Global impact of social mediaSocial media has a wide-reaching and significant impact on not only online activities but also offline behavior and life in general.
              During a global online user survey in February 2019, a significant share of respondents stated that social media had increased their access to information, ease of communication, and freedom of expression. On the flip side, respondents also felt that social media had worsened their personal privacy, increased a polarization in politics and heightened everyday distractions.