About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the United States population by age cohorts (Children: Under 18 years; Working population: 18-64 years; Senior population: 65 years or more). It lists the population in each age cohort group along with its percentage relative to the total population of United States. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution across children, working population and senior population for dependency ratio, housing requirements, ageing, migration patterns etc.

Key observations

The largest age group was 18 to 64 years with a poulation of 202.77 million (61% of the total population). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Age cohorts:

• Under 18 years
• 18 to 64 years
• 65 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age cohort for the United States population analysis. Total expected values are 3 groups ( Children, Working Population and Senior Population).
• Population: The population for the age cohort in United States is shown in the following column.
• Percent of Total Population: The population as a percent of total population of the United States is shown in the following column.

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 United States Population by Age. You can refer the same here

This shapefile represents habitat suitability categories (High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat) derived from a composite, continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada and northeastern California during spring, which is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse breeding and nesting period. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Spring included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June, and is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse breeding and nesting period. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the spring season. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION: Using the same ecoregion boundaries described above, the habitat classification dataset (an independent data set comprising 10% of the total telemetry location sample) was split into locations falling within respective north and south regions. HSI values from the composite and relativized statewide HSI surface were then extracted to each classification dataset location within the north and south region. The distribution of these values were used to identify class break values corresponding to 0.5 (high), 1.0 (moderate), and 1.5 (low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. These class breaks were used to classify the HSI surface into four discrete categories of habitat suitability: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat. In terms of percentiles, High habitat comprised greater than 30.9 % of the HSI values, Moderate comprised 15 – 30.9%, Low comprised 6.7 – 15%, and Non-Habitat comprised less than 6.7%.The classified north and south regions were then clipped by the boundary layer and mosaicked to create a statewide categorical surface for habitat selection. Each habitat suitability category was converted to a vector output where gaps within polygons less than 1.2 million square meters were eliminated, polygons within 500 meters of each other were connected to create corridors and polygons less than 1.2 million square meters in one category were incorporated to the adjacent category. The final step was to mask major roads that were buffered by 50m (Census, 2014), lakes (Peterson, 2008) and urban areas, and place those masked areas into the non-habitat category. The existing urban layer (Census 2010) was not sufficient for our needs because it excluded towns with a population lower than 1,500. Hence, we masked smaller towns (populations of 100 to 1500) and development with Census Block polygons (Census 2015) that had at least 50% urban development within their boundaries when viewed with reference imagery (ArcGIS World Imagery Service Layer). REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014

United States US: Population in Urban Agglomerations of More Than 1 Million: as % of Total Population data was reported at 45.896 % in 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 45.666 % for 2016. United States US: Population in Urban Agglomerations of More Than 1 Million: as % of Total Population data is updated yearly, averaging 42.013 % from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 45.896 % in 2017 and a record low of 38.733 % in 1960. United States US: Population in Urban Agglomerations of More Than 1 Million: as % of Total Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Population in urban agglomerations of more than one million is the percentage of a country's population living in metropolitan areas that in 2018 had a population of more than one million people.; ; United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects.; Weighted average;

The 2020 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 2018.

The Community Resilience Estimates (CRE) program provides an easily understood metric for how socially vulnerable every neighborhood in the United States is to the impacts of disasters.This ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census, CRE, and ACS when using this data.Overview:Community resilience is the capacity of individuals and households within a community to prepare, absorb, respond, and recover from a disaster. Local planners, policy makers, public health officials, emergency managers, and community stakeholders need a variety of estimates to help assess the potential resiliency and vulnerabilities of communities and their constituent populations to help prepare and plan mitigation, recovery, and response strategies. Community Resilience Estimates (CRE) focuses on developing a tool to identify socio-economic vulnerabilities within populations. The 2022 Community Resilience Estimates (CRE) are produced using information on individuals and households from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) and the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program (PEP). The CRE uses small area modeling techniques that can be used for a broad range of disaster related events (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, economic shocks, etc.) to identify population concentrations likely to be relatively more impacted by and have greater difficulties overcoming disasters.The end result is a data product which measures social vulnerability more accurately, timely, and address equity concerns differently than other measures.The CRE for Equity dataset provides information about the nation, states, counties, and census tracts from four different data sources. These sources include the Community Resilience Estimates, the American Community Survey, the 2020 Census, and the Census Bureau’s Planning Database. Providing all this information in one dataset allows users quick access to the data on a variety of topics concerning social vulnerability and equity.Data:The ACS is a nationally representative survey with data on the characteristics of the U.S. population. The sample is selected from all counties and county-equivalents and has a sample size of about 3.5 million housing units each year. It is the premier source for timely and detailed population and housing information about our nation and its communities. We also use auxiliary data from the PEP, the Census Bureau’s program that produces and publishes estimates of the population living at a given time within a geographic entity in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We use population data from the PEP by age group, race and ethnicity, and sex. Since the PEP does not go down to the census tract level, the CRE uses the Public Law 94-171 summary files (PL94) and Demographic Housing Characteristics File (DHC) tables from the 2020 Decennial Census to help produce the population base estimates. Once the weighted estimates are tabulated, small area modeling techniques are used to create the estimates for the CRE. Components of Social Vulnerability (SV): Resilience to a disaster is partly determined by the components of social vulnerability exhibited within a community’s population. To measure these components and construct the community resilience estimates, we designed population estimates based on individual- and household-level components of social vulnerability. These components are binary indicators or variables that add up to a maximum of 10 possible components using data from the ACS. The specific ACS-defined measures we use are as follows: Components of Social Vulnerability (SV) for Households (HH) and Individuals (I):SV 1: Income-to-Poverty Ratio (IPR) < 130 percent (HH). SV 2: Single or zero caregiver household - only one or no individuals living in the household who are 18-64 (HH). SV 3: Unit-level crowding with >= 0.75 persons per room (HH). SV 4: Communication barrier defined as either: Limited English-speaking households1 (HH) orNo one in the household over the age of 16 with a high school diploma (HH). SV 5: No one in the household is employed full-time, year-round. The flag is not applied if all residents of the household are aged 65 years or older (HH). SV 6: Disability posing constraint to significant life activity. Persons who report having any one of the six disability types (I): hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. SV 7: No health insurance coverage (I). SV 8: Being aged 65 years or older (I). SV 9: No vehicle access (HH). SV 10: Households without broadband internet access (HH). Each individual is assigned a 0 or 1 for each of the components based upon their individual or household attributes listed above. It is important to note that SV 4 is not double flagged. An individual will be assigned a 1, if either of the characteristics is true for their household. For example, if a household is linguistically isolated and no one over the age of 16 has attained a high school diploma or more education, the household members are only flagged once. The result is an index that produces aggregate-level (tract, county, and state) small area estimates: the CRE. The CRE provide an estimate for the number of people with a specific number of social vulnerabilities. In its current data file layout form, the estimates are categorized into three groups: zero , one-two, or three plus social vulnerability components. Differences with CRE 2021:The number of census tracts have increased from 84,414 in CRE 2021 to 84,415 in CRE 2022. This is due to the boundary changes in Connecticut implemented in 2022 census data products. To accommodate the boundary change, Connecticut also now has nine planning regions instead of eight counties in CRE 2022.To avoid confusion, the modeled rates are now set to equal zero in CRE 2022 for geographic areas with zero population in universe. To improve the population base estimates, CRE 2022 uses more detailed decennial estimates from the 2020 DHC in addition to PL94, whereas CRE 2021 just used PL94 due to availability at the time. See “2022 Community Resilience Estimates: Detailed Technical Documentation” for more information. Data Processing Notes:Boundaries come from the Cartographic Boundaries via US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates, and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). This dataset does not contain values for Puerto Rico or Island Areas at any level of geography.Further Information:Community Resilience Estimates Program Website https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/community-resilience-estimates.htmlCommunity Resilience Estimates Technical Documentation https://census.gov/programs-surveys/community-resilience-estimates/technical-documentation.htmlFor Data Questionssehsd.cre@census.gov

description: The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The primary legal divisions of most States are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, and municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four States (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their States. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The 2010 Census boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010, primarily as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

This table contains data on race, age, sex, and marital status from the American Community Survey 2006-2010 database for counties. The American Community Survey (ACS) is a household survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau that currently has an annual sample size of about 3.5 million addresses. ACS estimates provides communities with the current information they need to plan investments and services. Information from the survey generates estimates that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed annually. Each year the survey produces data that cover the periods of 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimates for geographic areas in the United States and Puerto Rico, ranging from neighborhoods to Congressional districts to the entire nation. This table also has a companion table (Same table name with MOE Suffix) with the margin of error (MOE) values for each estimated element. MOE is expressed as a measure value for each estimated element. So a value of 25 and an MOE of 5 means 25 +/- 5 (or statistical certainty between 20 and 30). There are also special cases of MOE. An MOE of -1 means the associated estimates do not have a measured error. An MOE of 0 means that error calculation is not appropriate for the associated value. An MOE of 109 is set whenever an estimate value is 0. The MOEs of aggregated elements and percentages must be calculated. This process means using standard error calculations as described in "American Community Survey Multiyear Accuracy of the Data (3-year 2008-2010 and 5-year 2006-2010)". Also, following Census guidelines, aggregated MOEs do not use more than 1 0-element MOE (109) to prevent over estimation of the error. Due to the complexity of the calculations, some percentage MOEs cannot be calculated (these are set to null in the summary-level MOE tables).

The name for table 'ACS10POPCNTYMOE' was added as a prefix to all field names imported from that table. Be sure to turn off 'Show Field Aliases' to see complete field names in the Attribute Table of this feature layer. This can be done in the 'Table Options' drop-down menu in the Attribute Table or with key sequence '[CTRL]+[SHIFT]+N'. Due to database restrictions, the prefix may have been abbreviated if the field name exceded the maximum allowed characters.; abstract: The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The primary legal divisions of most States are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, and municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four States (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their States. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The 2010 Census boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010, primarily as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

This table contains data on race, age, sex, and marital status from the American Community Survey 2006-2010 database for counties. The American Community Survey (ACS) is a household survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau that currently has an annual sample size of about 3.5 million addresses. ACS estimates provides communities with the current information they need to plan investments and services. Information from the survey generates estimates that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed annually. Each year the survey produces data that cover the periods of 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimates for geographic areas in the United States and Puerto Rico, ranging from neighborhoods to Congressional districts to the entire nation. This table also has a companion table (Same table name with MOE Suffix) with the margin of error (MOE) values for each estimated element. MOE is expressed as a measure value for each estimated element. So a value of 25 and an MOE of 5 means 25 +/- 5 (or statistical certainty between 20 and 30). There are also special cases of MOE. An MOE of -1 means the associated estimates do not have a measured error. An MOE of 0 means that error calculation is not appropriate for the associated value. An MOE of 109 is set whenever an estimate value is 0. The MOEs of aggregated elements and percentages must be calculated. This process means using standard error calculations as described in "American Community Survey Multiyear Accuracy of the Data (3-year 2008-2010 and 5-year 2006-2010)". Also, following Census guidelines, aggregated MOEs do not use more than 1 0-element MOE (109) to prevent over estimation of the error. Due to the complexity of the calculations, some percentage MOEs cannot be calculated (these are set to null in the summary-level MOE tables).

The name for table 'ACS10POPCNTYMOE' was added as a prefix to all field names imported from that table. Be sure to turn off 'Show Field Aliases' to see complete field names in the Attribute Table of this feature layer. This can be done in the 'Table Options' drop-down menu in the Attribute Table or with key sequence '[CTRL]+[SHIFT]+N'. Due to database restrictions, the prefix may have been abbreviated if the field name exceded the maximum allowed characters.

Estimated number of persons by quarter of a year and by year, Canada, provinces and territories.

The 2015 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 NECTA boundaries in this file are based on those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census and published in 2013.

This shapefile represents habitat suitability categories (High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat) derived from a composite, continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada and northeastern California during the winter season, and is a surrogate for habitat conditions during periods of cold and snow. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution and created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Winter included telemetry locations (n = 4862) from November to March. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion using R software (v 3.13) and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the spring season. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION: Using the same ecoregion boundaries described above, the habitat classification dataset (an independent data set comprising 10% of the total telemetry location sample) was split into locations falling within respective north and south regions. HSI values from the composite and relativized statewide HSI surface were then extracted to each classification dataset location within the north and south region. The distribution of these values were used to identify class break values corresponding to 0.5 (high), 1.0 (moderate), and 1.5 (low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. These class breaks were used to classify the HSI surface into four discrete categories of habitat suitability: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat. In terms of percentiles, High habitat comprised greater than 30.9 % of the HSI values, Moderate comprised 15 – 30.9%, Low comprised 6.7 – 15%, and Non-Habitat comprised less than 6.7%.The classified north and south regions were then clipped by the boundary layer and mosaicked to create a statewide categorical surface for habitat selection . Each habitat suitability category was converted to a vector output where gaps within polygons less than 1.2 million square meters were eliminated, polygons within 500 meters of each other were connected to create corridors and polygons less than 1.2 million square meters in one category were incorporated to the adjacent category. The final step was to mask major roads that were buffered by 50m (Census, 2014), lakes (Peterson, 2008) and urban areas, and place those masked areas into the non-habitat category. The existing urban layer (Census 2010) was not sufficient for our needs because it excluded towns with a population lower than 1,500. Hence, we masked smaller towns (populations of 100 to 1500) and development with Census Block polygons (Census 2015) that had at least 50% urban development within their boundaries when viewed with reference imagery (ArcGIS World Imagery Service Layer). REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014

50 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2050.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents-up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020 the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents. Where these future residents will live and work is unclear. For most of the 20th Century, two-thirds of Californians have lived south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains-in that part of the state commonly referred to as Southern California. Yet most of coastal Southern California is already highly urbanized, and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. More recently, slow-growth policies in Northern California and declining developable land supplies in Southern California are squeezing ever more of the state's population growth into the San Joaquin Valley. How future Californians will occupy the landscape is also unclear. Over the last fifty years, the state's population has grown increasingly urban. Today, nearly 95 percent of Californians live in metropolitan areas, mostly at densities less than ten persons per acre. Recent growth patterns have strongly favored locations near freeways, most of which where built in the 1950s and 1960s. With few new freeways on the planning horizon, how will California's future growth organize itself in space? By national standards, California's large urban areas are already reasonably dense, and economic theory suggests that densities should increase further as California's urban regions continue to grow. In practice, densities have been rising in some urban counties, but falling in others.

These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will California have enough land of the appropriate types and in the right locations to accommodate its projected population growth? Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit, or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat? How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms, and residents, and where will that water be stored? Where should future highway, transit, and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically, and in terms of changes in California's quality of life? Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation, and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural, and bioregional planning.

Consider two scenarios for the year 2100. In the first, California's population would grow to 80 million persons and would occupy the landscape at an average density of eight persons per acre, the current statewide urban average. Under this scenario, and assuming that 10% percent of California's future population growth would occur through infill-that is, on existing urban land-California's expanding urban population would consume an additional 5.06 million acres of currently undeveloped land. As an alternative, assume the share of infill development were increased to 30%, and that new population were accommodated at a density of about 12 persons per acre-which is the current average density of the City of Los Angeles. Under this second scenario, California's urban population would consume an additional 2.6 million acres of currently undeveloped land. While both scenarios accommodate the same amount of population growth and generate large increments of additional urban development-indeed, some might say even the second scenario allows far too much growth and development-the second scenario is far kinder to California's unique natural landscape.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends. The next section, titled Approach, outlines the methodology and data used to develop the various projections. The following section, Baseline Scenario, reviews the projections themselves. A final section, entitled Baseline Impacts, quantitatively assesses the impacts of the baseline projections on wetland, hillside, farmland and habitat loss.

This layer shows English ability and linguistic isolation by age group. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. Linguistically isolated households are households in which no one 14 and over speak English only or speaks a language other than English at home and speaks English very well. This layer is symbolized to show the percent of adult (18+) population who have limited English ability. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B16003, B16004 (Not all lines of ACS table B16004 are available in this feature layer.)Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. For more information about ACS layers, visit the FAQ. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases, specifically, the National Sub-State Geography Database (named tlgdb_(year)_a_us_substategeo.gdb). Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract level boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2023 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters).The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -4444...) have been set to null, with the exception of -5555... which has been set to zero. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.

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.

This dataset presents information on historical central government revenues for 31 countries in Europe and the Americas for the period from 1800 (or independence) to 2012. The countries included are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany (West Germany between 1949 and 1990), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. In other words, the dataset includes all South American, North American, and Western European countries with a population of more than one million, plus Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Mexico. The dataset contains information on the public finances of central governments. To make such information comparable cross-nationally we have chosen to normalize nominal revenue figures in two ways: (i) as a share of the total budget, and (ii) as a share of total gross domestic product. The total tax revenue of the central state is disaggregated guided by the Government Finance Statistics Manual 2001 of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which provides a classification of types of revenue, and describes in detail the contents of each classification category. Given the paucity of detailed historical data and the needs of our project, we combined some subcategories. First, we are interested in total tax revenue (centaxtot), as well as the shares of total revenue coming from direct (centaxdirectsh) and indirect (centaxindirectsh) taxes. Further, we measure two sub-categories of direct taxation, namely taxes on property (centaxpropertysh) and income (centaxincomesh). For indirect taxes, we separate excises (centaxexcisesh), consumption (centaxconssh), and customs(centaxcustomssh).

For a more detailed description of the dataset and the coding process, see the codebook available in the .zip-file.

Purpose:

This dataset presents information on historical central government revenues for 31 countries in Europe and the Americas for the period from 1800 (or independence) to 2012. The countries included are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany (West Germany between 1949 and 1990), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. In other words, the dataset includes all South American, North American, and Western European countries with a population of more than one million, plus Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Mexico. The dataset contains information on the public finances of central governments. To make such information comparable cross-nationally we have chosen to normalize nominal revenue figures in two ways: (i) as a share of the total budget, and (ii) as a share of total gross domestic product. The total tax revenue of the central state is disaggregated guided by the Government Finance Statistics Manual 2001 of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which provides a classification of types of revenue, and describes in detail the contents of each classification category. Given the paucity of detailed historical data and the needs of our project, we combined some subcategories. First, we are interested in total tax revenue (centaxtot), as well as the shares of total revenue coming from direct (centaxdirectsh) and indirect (centaxindirectsh) taxes. Further, we measure two sub-categories of direct taxation, namely taxes on property (centaxpropertysh) and income (centaxincomesh). For indirect taxes, we separate excises (centaxexcisesh), consumption (centaxconssh), and customs(centaxcustomssh).

This database contains tobacco consumption data from 1970-2015 collected through a systematic search coupled with consultation with country and subject-matter experts. Data quality appraisal was conducted by at least two research team members in duplicate, with greater weight given to official government sources. All data was standardized into units of cigarettes consumed and a detailed accounting of data quality and sourcing was prepared. Data was found for 82 of 214 countries for which searches for national cigarette consumption data were conducted, representing over 95% of global cigarette consumption and 85% of the world’s population. Cigarette consumption fell in most countries over the past three decades but trends in country specific consumption were highly variable. For example, China consumed 2.5 million metric tonnes (MMT) of cigarettes in 2013, more than Russia (0.36 MMT), the United States (0.28 MMT), Indonesia (0.28 MMT), Japan (0.20 MMT), and the next 35 highest consuming countries combined. The US and Japan achieved reductions of more than 0.1 MMT from a decade earlier, whereas Russian consumption plateaued, and Chinese and Indonesian consumption increased by 0.75 MMT and 0.1 MMT, respectively. These data generally concord with modelled country level data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and have the additional advantage of not smoothing year-over-year discontinuities that are necessary for robust quasi-experimental impact evaluations. Before this study, publicly available data on cigarette consumption have been limited—either inappropriate for quasi-experimental impact evaluations (modelled data), held privately by companies (proprietary data), or widely dispersed across many national statistical agencies and research organisations (disaggregated data). This new dataset confirms that cigarette consumption has decreased in most countries over the past three decades, but that secular country specific consumption trends are highly variable. The findings underscore the need for more robust processes in data reporting, ideally built into international legal instruments or other mandated processes. To monitor the impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and other tobacco control interventions, data on national tobacco production, trade, and sales should be routinely collected and openly reported. The first use of this database for a quasi-experimental impact evaluation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is: Hoffman SJ, Poirier MJP, Katwyk SRV, Baral P, Sritharan L. Impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control on global cigarette consumption: quasi-experimental evaluations using interrupted time series analysis and in-sample forecast event modelling. BMJ. 2019 Jun 19;365:l2287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2287 Another use of this database was to systematically code and classify longitudinal cigarette consumption trajectories in European countries since 1970 in: Poirier MJ, Lin G, Watson LK, Hoffman SJ. Classifying European cigarette consumption trajectories from 1970 to 2015. Tobacco Control. 2022 Jan. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056627. Statement of Contributions: Conceived the study: GEG, SJH Identified multi-country datasets: GEG, MP Extracted data from multi-country datasets: MP Quality assessment of data: MP, GEG Selection of data for final analysis: MP, GEG Data cleaning and management: MP, GL Internet searches: MP (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese), GEG (English, French), MYS (Chinese), SKA (Persian), SFK (Arabic); AG, EG, BL, MM, YM, NN, EN, HR, KV, CW, and JW (English), GL (English) Identification of key informants: GEG, GP Project Management: LS, JM, MP, SJH, GEG Contacts with Statistical Agencies: MP, GEG, MYS, SKA, SFK, GP, BL, MM, YM, NN, HR, KV, JW, GL Contacts with key informants: GEG, MP, GP, MYS, GP Funding: GEG, SJH SJH: Hoffman, SJ; JM: Mammone J; SRVK: Rogers Van Katwyk, S; LS: Sritharan, L; MT: Tran, M; SAK: Al-Khateeb, S; AG: Grjibovski, A.; EG: Gunn, E; SKA: Kamali-Anaraki, S; BL: Li, B; MM: Mahendren, M; YM: Mansoor, Y; NN: Natt, N; EN: Nwokoro, E; HR: Randhawa, H; MYS: Yunju Song, M; KV: Vercammen, K; CW: Wang, C; JW: Woo, J; MJPP: Poirier, MJP; GEG: Guindon, EG; GP: Paraje, G; GL Gigi Lin Key informants who provided data: Corne van Walbeek (South Africa, Jamaica) Frank Chaloupka (US) Ayda Yurekli (Turkey) Dardo Curti (Uruguay) Bungon Ritthiphakdee (Thailand) Jakub Lobaszewski (Poland) Guillermo Paraje (Chile, Argentina) Key informants who provided useful insights: Carlos Manuel Guerrero López (Mexico) Muhammad Jami Husain (Bangladesh) Nigar Nargis (Bangladesh) Rijo M John (India) Evan Blecher (Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, South Africa) Yagya Karki (Nepal) Anne CK Quah (Malaysia) Nery Suarez Lugo (Cuba) Agencies providing assistance: Iranian Tobacco Co. Institut National de la Statistique (Tunisia) HM Revenue & Customs (UK) Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement EFD/Département...

A dataset listing Florida counties by population for 2024.

description: The 2016 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.; abstract: The 2016 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.

A dataset listing Virginia cities by population for 2024.

This layer shows Asian alone or in any combination by selected groups. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. The numbers by detailed Asian groups do not add to the total population. This is because the detailed Asian groups are tallies of the number of Asian responses rather than the number of Asian respondents. Responses that include more than one race and/or Asian group are counted several times. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B02001, B02011, B02018 (Not all lines of ACS table B02001 are available in this layer.)Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. For more information about ACS layers, visit the FAQ. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases, specifically, the National Sub-State Geography Database (named tlgdb_(year)_a_us_substategeo.gdb). Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract level boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2023 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters).The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -4444...) have been set to null, with the exception of -5555... which has been set to zero. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.

A dataset listing California counties by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Illinois counties by population for 2024.