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.

Census data reveals that population density varies noticeably from area to area. Small area census data do a better job depicting where the crowded neighborhoods are. In this map, the yellow areas of highest density range from 30,000 to 150,000 persons per square kilometer. In those areas, if the people were spread out evenly across the area, there would be just 4 to 9 meters between them. Very high density areas exceed 7,000 persons per square kilometer. High density areas exceed 5,200 persons per square kilometer. The last categories break at 3,330 persons per square kilometer, and 1,500 persons per square kilometer.This dataset is comprised of multiple sources. All of the demographic data are from Michael Bauer Research with the exception of the following countries:Australia: Esri Australia and MapData ServicesCanada: Esri Canada and EnvironicsFrance: Esri FranceGermany: Esri Germany and NexigaIndia: Esri India and IndicusJapan: Esri JapanSouth Korea: Esri Korea and OPENmateSpain: Esri España and AISUnited States: Esri Demographics

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

Population density per pixel at 100 metre resolution. WorldPop provides estimates of numbers of people residing in each 100x100m grid cell for every low and middle income country. Through ingegrating cencus, survey, satellite and GIS datasets in a flexible machine-learning framework, high resolution maps of population counts and densities for 2000-2020 are produced, along with accompanying metadata. DATASET: Alpha version 2010 and 2015 estimates of numbers of people per grid square, with national totals adjusted to match UN population division estimates (http://esa.un.org/wpp/) and remaining unadjusted. REGION: Africa SPATIAL RESOLUTION: 0.000833333 decimal degrees (approx 100m at the equator) PROJECTION: Geographic, WGS84 UNITS: Estimated persons per grid square MAPPING APPROACH: Land cover based, as described in: Linard, C., Gilbert, M., Snow, R.W., Noor, A.M. and Tatem, A.J., 2012, Population distribution, settlement patterns and accessibility across Africa in 2010, PLoS ONE, 7(2): e31743. FORMAT: Geotiff (zipped using 7-zip (open access tool): www.7-zip.org) FILENAMES: Example - AGO10adjv4.tif = Angola (AGO) population count map for 2010 (10) adjusted to match UN national estimates (adj), version 4 (v4). Population maps are updated to new versions when improved census or other input data become available. Indonesia data available from WorldPop here.

San Marino People Using At Least Basic Drinking Water Services: % of Population data was reported at 100.000 % in 2015. This stayed constant from the previous number of 100.000 % for 2014. San Marino People Using At Least Basic Drinking Water Services: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 100.000 % from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2015, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 100.000 % in 2015 and a record low of 100.000 % in 2015. San Marino People Using At Least Basic Drinking Water Services: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s San Marino – Table SM.World Bank: Health Statistics. The percentage of people using at least basic water services. This indicator encompasses both people using basic water services as well as those using safely managed water services. Basic drinking water services is defined as drinking water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip. Improved water sources include piped water, boreholes or tubewells, protected dug wells, protected springs, and packaged or delivered water.; ; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (washdata.org).; Weighted average;

Italy IT: Population Density: People per Square Km data was reported at 205.859 Person/sq km in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 206.118 Person/sq km for 2016. Italy IT: Population Density: People per Square Km data is updated yearly, averaging 192.689 Person/sq km from Dec 1961 (Median) to 2017, with 57 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 206.667 Person/sq km in 2014 and a record low of 171.828 Person/sq km in 1961. Italy IT: Population Density: People per Square Km data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Italy – Table IT.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Population density is midyear population divided by land area in square kilometers. Population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship--except for refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of their country of origin. Land area is a country's total area, excluding area under inland water bodies, national claims to continental shelf, and exclusive economic zones. In most cases the definition of inland water bodies includes major rivers and lakes.; ; Food and Agriculture Organization and World Bank population estimates.; Weighted average;

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

The Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) Global Delta Urban-Rural Population and Land Area Estimates, Version 1 data set provides country-level estimates of urban, quasi-urban, rural, and total population (count), land area (square kilometers), and built-up areas in river delta- and non-delta contexts for 246 statistical areas (countries and other UN-recognized territories) for the years 1990, 2000, 2014 and 2015. The population estimates are disaggregated such that compounding risk factors including elevation, settlement patterns, and delta zones can be cross-examined. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that without significant adaptation and mitigation action, risk to coastal commUnities will increase at least one order of magnitude by 2100, placing people, property, and environmental resources at greater risk. Greater-risk zones were then generated: 1) the global extent of two low-elevation zones contiguous to the coast, one bounded by an upper elevation of 10m (LECZ10), and one by an upper elevation of 5m (LECZ05); 2) the extent of the world's major deltas; 3) the distribution of people and built-up area around the world; 4) the extents of urban centers around the world. The data are layered spatially, along with political and land/water boundaries, allowing the densities and quantities of population and built-up area, as well as levels of urbanization (defined as the share of population living in "urban centers") to be estimated for any country or region, both inside and outside the LECZs and deltas, and at two points in time (1990 and 2015). In using such estimates of populations living in 5m and 10m LECZs and outside of LECZs, policymakers can make informed decisions based on perceived exposure and vulnerability to potential damages from sea level rise.

The Rural Access Index (RAI) is a measure of access, developed by the World Bank in 2006. It was adopted as Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 9.1.1 in 2015, to measure the accessibility of rural populations. It is currently the only indicator for the SDGs that directly measures rural access.The RAI measures the proportion of the rural population that lives within 2 km of an all-season road. An all-season road is one that is motorable all year, but may be temporarily unavailable during inclement weather (Roberts, Shyam, & Rastogi, 2006). This dataset implements and expands on the most recent official methodology put forward by the World Bank, ReCAP's 2019 RAI Supplemental Guidelines. This is, to date, the only publicly available application of this method at a global scale.MethodologyReCAP's methodology provided new insight on what makes a road all-season and how this data should be handled: instead of removing unpaved roads from the network, the ones that are classified as unpaved are to be intersected with topographic and climatic conditions and, whenever there’s an overlap with excess precipitation and slope, a multiplying factor ranging from 0% to 100% is applied to the population that would access to that road. This present dataset developed by SDSN's SDG Transformation Centre proposes that authorities ability to maintain and remediate road conditions also be taken into account.Data sourcesThe indicator relies on four major items of geospatial data: land cover (rural or urban), population distribution, road network extent and the “all-season” status of those roads.Land cover data (urban/rural distinction)Since the indicator measures the acess rural populations, it's necessary to define what is and what isn't rural. This dataset uses the DegUrba Methodology, proposed by the United Nations Expert Group on Statistical Methodology for Delineating Cities and Rural Areas (United Nations Expert Group, 2019). This approach has been developed by the European Commission Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL-SMOD) project, and is designed to instil some consistency into the definitions based on population density on a 1-km grid, but adjusted for local situations.Population distributionThe source for population distribution data is WorldPop. This uses national census data, projections and other ancillary data from countries to produce aggregated, 100 m2 population data. Road extentTwo widely recognized road datasets are used: the real-time updated crowd-sourced OpenStreetMap (OSM) or the GLOBIO’s 2018 GRIP database, which draws data from official national sources. The reasons for picking the latter are mostly related to its ability to provide information on the surface (pavement) of these roads, to the detriment of the timeliness of the data, which is restrained to the year 2018. Additionally, data from Microsoft Bing's recent Road Detection project is used to ensure completeness. This dataset is completely derived from machine learning methods applied over satellite imagery, and detected 1,165 km of roads missing from OSM.Roads’ all-season statusThe World Bank's original 2006 methodology defines the term all-season as “… a road that is motorable all year round by the prevailing means of rural transport, allowing for occasional interruptions of short duration”. ReCAP's 2019 methodology makes a case for passability equating to the all-season status of a road, along with the assumption that typically the wet season is when roads become impassable, especially so in steep roads that are more exposed to landslides.This dataset follows the ReCAP methodology by creating an passability index. The proposed use of passability factors relies on the following three aspects:• Surface type. Many rural roads in LICs (and even in large high-income countries including the USA and Australia) are unpaved. As mentioned before, unpaved roads deteriorate rapidly and in a different way to paved roads. They are very susceptible to water ingress to the surface, which softens the materials and makes them very vulnerable to the action of traffic. So, when a road surface becomes saturated and is subject to traffic, the deterioration is accelerated. • Climate. Precipitation has a significant effect on the condition of a road, especially on unpaved roads, which predominate in LICs and provide much of the extended connectivity to rural and poor areas. As mentioned above, the rainfall on a road is a significant factor in its deterioration, but the extent depends on the type of rainfall in terms of duration and intensity, and how well the roadside drainage copes with this. While ReCAP suggested the use of general climate zones, we argue that better spatial and temporal resolutions can be acquired through the Copernicus Programme precipitation data, which is made available freely at ~30km pixel size for each month of the year.• Terrain. The gradient and altitude of roads also has an effect on their accessibility. Steep roads become impassable more easily due to the potential for scour during heavy rainfall, and also due to slipperiness as a result of the road surface materials used. Here this is drawn from slope calculated from SRTM Digital Terrain data.• Road maintenance. The ability of local authorities to remediate damaged caused by precipitation and landslides is proposed as a correcting factor to the previous ones. Ideally this would be measured by the % of GDP invested in road construction and maintenance, but this isn't available for all countries. For this reason, GDP per capita is adopted as a proxy instead. The data range is normalized in such a way that a road maxed out in terms of precipitation and slope (accessibility score of 0.25) in a country at the top of the GDP per capita range is brought back at to the higher end of the accessibility score (0.95), while the accessibility score of a road meeting the same passability conditions in a country which GDP per capita is towards the lower end is kept unchanged.Data processingThe roads from the three aforementioned datasets (Bing, GRIP and OSM) are merged together to them is applied a 2km buffer. The populations falling exclusively on unpaved road buffers are multiplied by the resulting passability index, which is defined as the normalized sum of the aforementioned components, ranging from 0.25 to. 0.9, with 0.95 meaning 95% probability that the road is all-season. The index applied to the population data, so, when calculated, the RAI includes the probability that the roads which people are using in each area will be all-season or not. For example, an unpaved road in a flat area with low rainfall would have an accessibility factor of 0.95, as this road is designed to be accessible all year round and the environmental effects on its impassability are minimal.The code for generating this dataset is available on Github at: https://github.com/sdsna/rai

Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

The difficulties of death figures

This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

Office for National Statistics’ national and subnational total mid-year population estimates for England and Wales for a selection of administrative and census areas by sex for 2012 to 2020. The data is source is from ONS Population Estimates. Find out more about this dataset here.

This data is issued at (BGC) Generalised (20m) boundary type for:

Country, Region, Upper Tier Local Authority (2021), Lower Tier Local Authority (2021), Middle Super Output Area (2011), and Lower Super Output Area (2011).

If you require the data at full resolution boundaries, or if you are interested in the range of statistical data that Esri UK make available in ArcGIS Online please enquire at dataenquiries@esriuk.com.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) produces annual estimates of the resident population of England and Wales at 30 June every year. The most authoritative population estimates come from the census, which takes place every 10 years in the UK. Population estimates from a census are updated each year to produce mid-year population estimates (MYEs), which are broken down by local authority, sex and age. More detailed information on the methods used to generate the mid-year population estimates can be found here.

For further information on the usefulness of the data and guidance on small area geographies please see here.The currency of this data is 2021.

Methodology

The total and 5-year breakdown population counts are reproduced directly from the source data. The age range estimates have been calculated from the published estimates by single year of age. The percentages are calculated using the gender specific (total, female or male) total population count as a denominator except in the case of the male and female total population where the total population is used to give female and male proportions.

This dataset will be updated annually, in two releases.

Creator: Office for National Statistics. Aggregated age groupings and percentages calculated by Esri UK._The data services available from this page are derived from the National Data Service. The NDS delivers thousands of open national statistical indicators for the UK as data-as-a-service. Data are sourced from major providers such as the Office for National Statistics, Public Health England and Police UK and made available for your area at standard geographies such as counties, districts and wards and census output areas. This premium service can be consumed as online web services or on-premise for use throughout the ArcGIS system.Read more about the NDS.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Country Club, MO, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 27,846, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 219,169. This indicates that the top earners earn 8 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 368,873, which is 168.31% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1324.69% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

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 Country Club median household income. You can refer the same here

The Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) Urban-Rural Population Estimates consists of country-level estimates of urban, rural and total population and land area country-wide and in the LECZ, if applicable. Additionally, the data set provides the number of urban extents, their population and land area that intersect the LECZ, by city-size population classifications of less than 100,000, 100,000 to 500,000, 500,000 to 1,000,000, 1,000,000 to 5,000,000, and more than 5,000,000. All estimates are based on GRUMP Alpha data products. The LECZ was generated using SRTM Digital Elevation Model data and includes all land area that is contiguous with the coast and 10 meters or less in elevation. All grids used for population, land area, urban mask, and LECZ were of 30 arc-second (~1 km ) resolution. This data set is produced by the Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

The Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) Urban-Rural Population and Land Area Estimates, Version 2 data set consists of country-level estimates of urban population, rural population, total population and land area country-wide and in LECZs for years 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2100. The LECZs were derived from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), 3 arc-second (~90m) data which were post processed by ISciences LLC to include only elevations less than 20m contiguous to coastlines; and to supplement SRTM data in northern and southern latitudes. The population and land area statistics presented herein are summarized at the low coastal elevations of less than or equal to 1m, 3m, 5m, 7m, 9m, 10m, 12m, and 20m. Additionally, estimates are provided for elevations greater than 20m, and nationally. The spatial coverage of this data set includes 202 of the 232 countries and statistical areas delineated in the Gridded Rural-Urban Mapping Project version 1 (GRUMPv1) data set. The 30 omitted areas were not included because they were landlocked, or otherwise lacked coastal features. This data set makes use of the population inputs of GRUMPv1 allocated at 3 arc-seconds to match the SRTM elevations, and at 30 arc-seconds resolution in order to reflect uncertainty levels in the product resulting from the interplay of input population data resolutions (based on census Units) and the elevation data. Urban and rural areas are differentiated by the GRUMPv1 Urban Extents. This data set is produced by the Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN).

This dataset and map service provides information on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) low to moderate income areas. The term Low to Moderate Income, often referred to as low-mod, has a specific programmatic context within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. HUD uses special tabulations of Census data to determine areas where at least 51% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). This dataset and map service contains the following layer.

As of February 2025, 87.5 percent of the population in Burundi did not have internet access. Chad followed, with around 86.8 percent reportedly being offline. North Korea ranked first with an internet penetration of nearly zero percent, as the internet remains blocked for its citizens. Global internet freedom and access The degree of internet freedom varies drastically across countries, with some providing open access and others imposing significant restrictions. In 2023, Iceland was leading worldwide in terms of internet freedom, while China ranked the lowest in the world, with strict government surveillance and censorship. The struggle with limited internet access is particularly evident in Africa, which had the lowest internet penetration rates as of 2023. Global privacy concerns The limitations and restrictions to internet access around the world prove that internet users' privacy is extremely vulnerable. And those who have access to the web are somewhat aware of that. By the first quarter of 2024, around 30.7 percent of internet users expressed concerns about companies misusing their data. This growing awareness of privacy risks is reflected in users’ behaviour. By June 2023, three in ten internet users worldwide had already taken measures to protect their online privacy, with 22.7 percent opting for tools like VPNs. Additionally, many internet users reported taking further steps, such as enabling multi-factor authentication, to for stronger privacy protections.

Laos LA: People Using At Least Basic Drinking Water Services: % of Population data was reported at 80.447 % in 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 78.385 % for 2014. Laos LA: People Using At Least Basic Drinking Water Services: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 63.938 % from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2015, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 80.447 % in 2015 and a record low of 45.829 % in 2000. Laos LA: People Using At Least Basic Drinking Water Services: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Laos – Table LA.World Bank: Health Statistics. The percentage of people using at least basic water services. This indicator encompasses both people using basic water services as well as those using safely managed water services. Basic drinking water services is defined as drinking water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip. Improved water sources include piped water, boreholes or tubewells, protected dug wells, protected springs, and packaged or delivered water.; ; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (washdata.org).; Weighted Average;

China is a vast and diverse country and population density in different regions varies greatly. In 2023, the estimated population density of the administrative area of Shanghai municipality reached about 3,922 inhabitants per square kilometer, whereas statistically only around three people were living on one square kilometer in Tibet. Population distribution in China China's population is unevenly distributed across the country: while most people are living in the southeastern half of the country, the northwestern half – which includes the provinces and autonomous regions of Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Gansu, and Inner Mongolia – is only sparsely populated. Even the inhabitants of a single province might be unequally distributed within its borders. This is significantly influenced by the geography of each region, and is especially the case in the Guangdong, Fujian, or Sichuan provinces due to their mountain ranges. The Chinese provinces with the largest absolute population size are Guangdong in the south, Shandong in the east and Henan in Central China. Urbanization and city population Urbanization is one of the main factors which have been reshaping China over the last four decades. However, when comparing the size of cities and urban population density, one has to bear in mind that data often refers to the administrative area of cities or urban units, which might be much larger than the contiguous built-up area of that city. The administrative area of Beijing municipality, for example, includes large rural districts, where only around 200 inhabitants are living per square kilometer on average, while roughly 20,000 residents per square kilometer are living in the two central city districts. This is the main reason for the huge difference in population density between the four Chinese municipalities Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing shown in many population statistics.

During the Second World War, the three Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Finland mobilized the largest share of their male population. For the Allies, the Soviet Union mobilized the largest share of men, as well as the largest total army of any country, but it was restricted in its ability to mobilize more due to the impact this would have on its economy. Other notable statistics come from the British Empire, where a larger share of men were drafted from Dominions than from the metropole, and there is also a discrepancy between the share of the black and white populations from South Africa.

However, it should be noted that there were many external factors from the war that influenced these figures. For example, gender ratios among the adult populations of many European countries was already skewed due to previous conflicts of the 20th century (namely WWI and the Russian Revolution), whereas the share of the male population eligible to fight in many Asian and African countries was lower than more demographically developed societies, as high child mortality rates meant that the average age of the population was much lower.

Laos LA: People Using At Least Basic Sanitation Services: % of Population data was reported at 72.594 % in 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 69.809 % for 2014. Laos LA: People Using At Least Basic Sanitation Services: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 50.963 % from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2015, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 72.594 % in 2015 and a record low of 27.971 % in 2000. Laos LA: People Using At Least Basic Sanitation Services: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Laos – Table LA.World Bank: Health Statistics. The percentage of people using at least basic sanitation services, that is, improved sanitation facilities that are not shared with other households. This indicator encompasses both people using basic sanitation services as well as those using safely managed sanitation services. Improved sanitation facilities include flush/pour flush to piped sewer systems, septic tanks or pit latrines; ventilated improved pit latrines, compositing toilets or pit latrines with slabs.; ; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (washdata.org).; Weighted Average;