A dataset listing Illinois cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Florida cities by population for 2024.

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

A dataset listing Tennessee cities by population for 2024.

The data is from:

https://simplemaps.com/data/world-cities

We're proud to offer a simple, accurate and up-to-date database of the world's cities and towns. We've built it from the ground up using authoritative sources such as the NGIA, US Geological Survey, US Census Bureau, and NASA.

Our database is:

• Up-to-date: It was last refreshed in July 2021.
• Comprehensive: Over 4 million unique cities and towns from every country in the world (about 41 thousand in basic database).
• Accurate: Cleaned and aggregated from official sources. Includes latitude and longitude coordinates.
• Simple: A single CSV file, concise field names, only one entry per city.

Many residents of New York City speak more than one language; a number of them speak and understand non-English languages more fluently than English. This dataset, derived from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS), includes information on over 1.7 million limited English proficient (LEP) residents and a subset of that population called limited English proficient citizens of voting age (CVALEP) at the Community District level. There are 59 community districts throughout NYC, with each district being represented by a Community Board.

The 2019 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. In New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has defined an alternative county subdivision (generally cities and towns) based definition of Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) known as New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs). NECTAs are defined using the same criteria as Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and are identified as either metropolitan or micropolitan, based, respectively, on the presence of either an urban area of 50,000 or more population or an urban cluster of at least 10,000 and less than 50,000 population. A NECTA containing a single core urban area with a population of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of cities and towns referred to as NECTA Divisions. The generalized boundaries in this file are based on those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2015, 2017, and 2018.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the California population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of California across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2024, the population of California was 39.43 million, a 0.59% increase year-by-year from 2023. Previously, in 2023, California population was 39.2 million, an increase of 0.14% compared to a population of 39.14 million in 2022. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2024, population of California increased by 5.44 million. In this period, the peak population was 39.52 million in the year 2020. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2024

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2024)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the California is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in California population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for California Population by Year. You can refer the same here

The 2020 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. In New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has defined an alternative county subdivision (generally cities and towns) based definition of Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) known as New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs). NECTAs are defined using the same criteria as Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and are identified as either metropolitan or micropolitan, based, respectively, on the presence of either an urban area of 50,000 or more population or an urban cluster of at least 10,000 and less than 50,000 population. A NECTA containing a single core urban area with a population of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of cities and towns referred to as NECTA Divisions. The generalized boundaries in this file are based on those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2018.

There are limited open source data available for determining water production/treatment and required energy for cities across the United States. This database represents the culmination of a two-year effort to obtain data from cities across the United States via open records requests in order to determine the state of the U.S. urban energy-water nexus. Data were requested at the daily or monthly scale when available for 127 cities across the United States, represented by 253 distinct water and sewer districts. Data were requested from cities larger than 100,000 people and from each state. In the case of states that did not have cities that met these criteria, the largest cities in those states were selected. The resulting database represents a drinking water service population of 81.4 million and a wastewater service population of 86.2 million people. Average daily demands for the United States were calculated to be 560 liters per capita for drinking water and 500 liters per capita of wastewater. The embedded energy within each of these resources is 340 kWh/1000 m3 and 430 kWh/1000 m3, respectively. Drinking water data at the annual scale are available for production volume (89 cities) and for embedded energy (73 cities). Annual wastewater data are available for treated volume (104 cities) and embedded energy (90 cities). Monthly data are available for drinking water volume and embedded energy (73 and 56 cities) and wastewater volume and embedded energy (88 and 70 cities). Please see the two related papers for this metadata are included with this submission. Each folder name is a city that contributed data to the collection effort (City+State Abbreviation). Within each folder is a .csv file with drinking water and wastewater volume and energy data. A READ-ME file within each folder details the contents of the folder within any relevant information pertaining to data collection. Data are on the order of a monthly timescale when available, and yearly if not. Please cite the following papers when using the database: Chini, C.M. and Stillwell, A.S. (2017). The State of U.S. Urban Water: Data and the Energy-Water Nexus. Water Resources Research. 54(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022265 Chini, C.M., and Stillwell, A. (2016). Where are all the data? The case for a comprehensive water and wastewater utility database. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 143(3). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000739

A range of indicators for a selection of cities from the New York City Global City database. Dataset includes the following: Geography City Area (km2) Metro Area (km2) People City Population (millions) Metro Population (millions) Foreign Born Annual Population Growth Economy GDP Per Capita (thousands $, PPP rates, per resident) Primary Industry Secondary Industry Share of Global 500 Companies (%) Unemployment Rate Poverty Rate Transportation Public Transportation Mass Transit Commuters Major Airports Major Ports Education Students Enrolled in Higher Education Percent of Population with Higher Education (%) Higher Education Institutions Tourism Total Tourists Annually (millions) Foreign Tourists Annually (millions) Domestic Tourists Annually (millions) Annual Tourism Revenue ($US billions) Hotel Rooms (thousands) Health Infant Mortality (Deaths per 1,000 Births) Life Expectancy in Years (Male) Life Expectancy in Years (Female) Physicians per 100,000 People Number of Hospitals Anti-Smoking Legislation Culture Number of Museums Number of Cultural and Arts Organizations Environment Green Spaces (km2) Air Quality Laws or Regulations to Improve Energy Efficiency Retrofitted City Vehicle Fleet Bike Share Program

In 2023, Washington, D.C. had the highest population density in the United States, with 11,130.69 people per square mile. As a whole, there were about 94.83 residents per square mile in the U.S., and Alaska was the state with the lowest population density, with 1.29 residents per square mile. The problem of population density Simply put, population density is the population of a country divided by the area of the country. While this can be an interesting measure of how many people live in a country and how large the country is, it does not account for the degree of urbanization, or the share of people who live in urban centers. For example, Russia is the largest country in the world and has a comparatively low population, so its population density is very low. However, much of the country is uninhabited, so cities in Russia are much more densely populated than the rest of the country. Urbanization in the United States While the United States is not very densely populated compared to other countries, its population density has increased significantly over the past few decades. The degree of urbanization has also increased, and well over half of the population lives in urban centers.

The urban–rural continuum classifies the global population, allocating rural populations around differently-sized cities. The classification is based on four dimensions: population distribution, population density, urban center location, and travel time to urban centers, all of which can be mapped globally and consistently and then aggregated as administrative unit statistics.Using spatial data, we matched all rural locations to their urban center of reference based on the time needed to reach these urban centers. A hierarchy of urban centers by population size (largest to smallest) is used to determine which center is the point of “reference” for a given rural location: proximity to a larger center “dominates” over a smaller one in the same travel time category. This was done for 7 urban categories and then aggregated, for presentation purposes, into “large cities” (over 1 million people), “intermediate cities” (250,000 –1 million), and “small cities and towns” (20,000–250,000).Finally, to reflect the diversity of population density across the urban–rural continuum, we distinguished between high-density rural areas with over 1,500 inhabitants per km2 and lower density areas. Unlike traditional functional area approaches, our approach does not define urban catchment areas by using thresholds, such as proportion of people commuting; instead, these emerge endogenously from our urban hierarchy and by calculating the shortest travel time.Urban-Rural Catchment Areas (URCA).tif is a raster dataset of the 30 urban–rural continuum categories for the urban–rural continuum showing the catchment areas around cities and towns of different sizes. Each rural pixel is assigned to one defined travel time category: less than one hour, one to two hours, and two to three hours travel time to one of seven urban agglomeration sizes. The agglomerations range from large cities with i) populations greater than 5 million and ii) between 1 to 5 million; intermediate cities with iii) 500,000 to 1 million and iv) 250,000 to 500,000 inhabitants; small cities with populations v) between 100,000 and 250,000 and vi) between 50,000 and 100,000; and vii) towns of between 20,000 and 50,000 people. The remaining pixels that are more than 3 hours away from any urban agglomeration of at least 20,000 people are considered as either hinterland or dispersed towns being that they are not gravitating around any urban agglomeration. The raster also allows for visualizing a simplified continuum created by grouping the seven urban agglomerations into 4 categories.Urban-Rural Catchment Areas (URCA).tif is in GeoTIFF format, band interleaved with LZW compression, suitable for use in Geographic Information Systems and statistical packages. The data type is byte, with pixel values ranging from 1 to 30. The no data value is 128. It has a spatial resolution of 30 arc seconds, which is approximately 1km at the equator. The spatial reference system (projection) is EPSG:4326 - WGS84 - Geographic Coordinate System (lat/long). The geographic extent is 83.6N - 60S / 180E - 180W. The same tif file is also available as an ESRI ArcMap MapPackage Urban-Rural Catchment Areas.mpkFurther details are in the ReadMe_data_description.docx

Currently, COVID-19 vaccinations are being conducted all over the world. However, the vaccination process may take some time to complete; it needs citizens’ willingness to participate as quickly as possible. Hanoi is one of the most populous cities in Vietnam, with a population of approximately eight million people, so it is generally believed to be a potential disease epicenter. Our study aims to advance the understanding of Hanoian inhabitants’ perceptions of and their willingness to participate in COVID-19 vaccinations. A random sampling technique and an online survey were conducted in Hanoi in March 2021. A total of 520 adults representing 520 households in different districts joined this investigation. The content of this study was divided into four sectors: (1) residents’ perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) their understanding of the COVID-19 vaccine; (3) their willingness to opt for the COVID-19 vaccine; and (4) respondents’ demographic information.

Cities ranking and mega citiesTokyo is the world’s largest city with an agglomeration of 37 million inhabitants, followed by New Delhi with 29 million, Shanghai with 26 million, and Mexico City and São Paulo, each with around 22 million inhabitants. Today, Cairo, Mumbai, Beijing and Dhaka all have close to 20 million inhabitants. By 2020, Tokyo’s population is projected to begin to decline, while Delhi is projected to continue growing and to become the most populous city in the world around 2028.By 2030, the world is projected to have 43 megacities with more than 10 million inhabitants, most of them in developing regions. However, some of the fastest-growing urban agglomerations are cities with fewer than 1 million inhabitants, many of them located in Asia and Africa. While one in eight people live in 33 megacities worldwide, close to half of the world’s urban dwellers reside in much smaller settlements with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants.About the dataThe 2018 Revision of the World Urbanization Prospects is published by the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). It has been issued regularly since 1988 with revised estimates and projections of the urban and rural populations for all countries of the world, and of their major urban agglomerations. The data set and related materials are available at: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/

Data shared in this platform is data related to quality of life and domains in Medan City, North Sumatra Province, Indonesia. Medan City is the third largest city in Indonesia with a population of around 2.5 million. Medan city is certainly not spared from the Covid-19 Pandemic although judging by the percentage it is only 2-3% of the total Covid-19 sufferers in Indonesia. The quality of life measured is the quality of life of the community after 2 months of applying Physical Distancing. The application of Physical Distancing certainly has an impact on the declining quality of life of the people. By measuring the quality of life of the people during this pandemic, it is expected to be able to provide an overview for all stakeholders related to the impact of a pandemic and the policies undertaken in relation to the pandemic on the quality of life of people in an area. In the future, this is expected to be a good reference regarding pandemics and policies that should be implemented.

The dataset uses multi-source datasets (TC, remote sensing, meteorological, vector, and socioeconomic data) from various domestic and international data platforms and institutions .The TC best track data was obtained at the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) (http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/besttrack.html) and Japan typhoon Digital Center (http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon ).Tropical cyclone information for past tropical cyclones includes the position, central pressure, moving velocity, duration time ,moving distance and intensity of each TC from 1951-2018 for every six hour. Remote sensing data include digital elevation model (DEM), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), land use, and land cover. Meteorological data include the wind speed and total precipitation.Total precipitation and wind speed is in the period of 2010-2018 , collected respectively from China Meterological Administration(http://data.cma.cn),.Socioeconomic data include the population density, GDP, and historical disaster loss.The data of population density, GDP and vegetation index were obtained from spatial grid datasets of the Chinese population, GDP and vegetation index based on 1km spatial resolution.Land use and cover data was from multi period land use and cover remote sensing datasets in China (CNLUCC), and all these datasets is available at Resource and Environment data Cloud Platform provided by Institute of geography, resources and environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences(http://www.resdc.cn). DEM data was deprived from Aster GDEM v2 at 30 m resolution, available at United States Geological Survey (USGS Earth Explorer site in Center for Earth Observation.The indicator of Slope is calculated from the DEM data..Vector data include road networks, railway networks, water networks, coastlines and point of interest (POI) data such as the medical, public, and educational infrastructure and charitable organizations in the cities of Guangdong.The Indicator of coastline,river density ,railway were deprived from 1: 1 million National basic geographic information dataset (2017 version)in National Basic Geographic Information Center.

The 2019 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. In New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has defined an alternative county subdivision (generally cities and towns) based definition of Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) known as New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs). NECTAs are defined using the same criteria as Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and are identified as either metropolitan or micropolitan, based, respectively, on the presence of either an urban area of 50,000 or more population or an urban cluster of at least 10,000 and less than 50,000 population. A NECTA containing a single core urban area with a population of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of cities and towns referred to as NECTA Divisions. The generalized boundaries in this file are based on those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2015, 2017, and 2018.

Clarifying the association between city population size and older adults’ health is vital in understanding the health disparity across different cities in China. Using a nationally representative dataset, this study employed Multilevel Mixed-effects Probit regression models and Sorting Analysis to elucidate this association, taking into account the sorting decisions made by older adults. The main results of the study include: (1) The association between city population size and the self-rated health of older adults shifts from a positive linear to an inverted U-shaped relationship once individual socioeconomic status is controlled for; the socioeconomic development of cities, intertwined with the growth of their populations, plays a pivotal role in yielding health benefits. (2) There is a sorting effect in older adults’ residential decisions; compared to cities with over 5 million residents, unobserved factors result in smaller cities hosting more less-healthy older adults, which may cause overestimation of health benefits in cities with greater population size. (3) The evolving socioeconomic and human-made environment resulting from urban population growth introduces health risks for migratory older adults but yields benefits for those with local resident status who are male, aged over 70, and have lower living standards and socioeconomic status. And (4) The sorting effects are more pronounced among older adults with greater resources supporting their mobility or those without permanent local resident status. Thus, policymakers should adapt planning and development strategies to consider the intricate relationship between city population size and the health of older adults.

Metropolitan DivisionsThis feature layer, utilizing National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) data from the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), displays Metropolitan Divisions within the United States. According to the USCB, "Metropolitan Divisions subdivide a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) containing a single core urban area that has a population of at least 2.5 million to form smaller groupings of counties or equivalent entities. Not all MSAs with urban areas of this size will contain Metropolitan Divisions. Not all MSAs with urban areas of this size will contain Metropolitan Divisions. Metropolitan Division are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of one or more main counties or equivalent entities that represent an employment center or centers, plus adjacent counties associated with the main county or counties through commuting ties."Nassau County-Suffolk County, NY Metro Division & New Brunswick-Lakewood, NJ Metro DivisionData currency: This cached Esri federal service is checked weekly for updates from its enterprise federal source (Metropolitan Divisions) and will support mapping, analysis, data exports and OGC API – Feature access.NGDAID: 83 (Series Information for Metropolitan Division National TIGER/Line Shapefiles, Current)OGC API Features Link: (Metropolitan Divisions - OGC Features) copy this link to embed it in OGC Compliant viewersFor more information, please visit: Geographic LevelsFor feedback please contact: Esri_US_Federal_Data@esri.comNGDA Data SetThis data set is part of the NGDA Governmental Units, and Administrative and Statistical Boundaries Theme Community. Per the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC), this theme is defined as the "boundaries that delineate geographic areas for uses such as governance and the general provision of services (e.g., states, American Indian reservations, counties, cities, towns, etc.), administration and/or for a specific purpose (e.g., congressional districts, school districts, fire districts, Alaska Native Regional Corporations, etc.), and/or provision of statistical data (census tracts, census blocks, metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, etc.). Boundaries for these various types of geographic areas are either defined through a documented legal description or through criteria and guidelines. Other boundaries may include international limits, those of federal land ownership, the extent of administrative regions for various federal agencies, as well as the jurisdictional offshore limits of U.S. sovereignty. Boundaries associated solely with natural resources and/or cultural entities are excluded from this theme and are included in the appropriate subject themes."For other NGDA Content: Esri Federal Datasets