Visual CapitalistModify

2026-08-24 04:14:28

The Best and Worst Months to Book a Hotel in U.S. Cities

If you’ve booked a hotel lately, you know that it’s a game of roulette.

One month it seems like you get a screaming deal, but then the next time you book, prices have mysteriously skyrocketed. Is it seasonal or is that by chance?

This visualization helps explain some of that variance by breaking down the best and worst months to book a hotel in U.S. cities.

The data and visualization both come from business travel company Engine, which put together a proprietary dataset on hotel prices by month for 50 U.S. cities using 129 million data points.

Highs and Lows of Hotel Prices by U.S. City

The table below summarizes the cheapest and most expensive months for the 20 cities shown above, along with each city’s median nightly rate and seasonal price swing.

For readers looking beyond these major markets, the complete dataset for all 50 cities appears at the bottom of this post.

The swing percentage is calculated as the priciest month minus the least expensive month, divided by the median price.

Cities With the Biggest Price Swings

The three cities with the biggest seasonal price swings in the dataset are New York (103%), Phoenix (94%), and Boston (88%).

The Big Apple has the most interesting contrast here, especially as the most visited city in the country. In December, it costs a high of $541 to book a hotel, but in January, after Christmas and New Year’s celebrations are over, that drops to a low of $196.

Similarly, January is the cheapest time to go to Boston ($166), with its priciest month being October ($458).

Phoenix shows the opposite pattern because of how hot the desert is in summer. Hotel prices plummet to $96 per night in August, but during the winter months of February and March, hotel prices peak at $246.

Cities That Have the Least Variance

But not all U.S. cities have intense seasonal variance. For these U.S. cities, there is no real best or worst month to book a hotel.

Los Angeles, with year-round good weather, is the clearest example in the dataset, with just 14% variance in hotel prices. The cheapest month for a hotel is January ($157), but it only costs $24 more per night to book in the most expensive month, October ($181).

Two cities in Texas, San Antonio and Dallas-Fort Worth, also show little variance by month in hotel prices, at 21% and 22%, respectively.

The Full Data Set for 50 Cities

Below is the full dataset for all 50 cities.

For further analysis, we recommend checking out Engine’s original post, which includes some interactive data visualizations as well.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

What type of accommodation do Americans opt for when travelling? This visual on Voronoi compares hotels against other types of accommodation like vacation apartments, cruises, and motorhomes.

2026-08-24 02:27:25

Ranked: Water Supply vs. Use Per Person by Country

Freshwater abundance and water use tell two very different stories.

This graphic compares renewable freshwater resources with freshwater withdrawals per person, showing where water is most abundant and where the most is drawn, based on figures from Our World in Data and Statista.

Where Freshwater Is Most Abundant

Iceland stands in a category of its own, with 15.7 million cubic feet of renewable freshwater resources per person. Guyana follows at 10.4 million, while Suriname ranks third at 5.6 million.

Rank	Country	Cubic Feet of Freshwater Per Person
1	Iceland	15.7M
2	Guyana	10.4M
3	Suriname	5.6M
4	Bhutan	3.5M
5	Papua New Guinea	2.8M
6	Canada	2.6M
7	Norway	2.5M
8	Gabon	2.4M
9	New Zealand	2.3M
10	Solomon Islands	2.0M
11	Peru	1.7M
12	Chile	1.6M
13	Colombia	1.5M
14	Belize	1.3M
15	Liberia	1.3M
16	Congo	1.3M
17	Vanuatu	1.1M
18	Fiji	1.1M
19	Panama	1.1M
20	Russia	1.1M
21	Venezuela	1.0M
22	Central African Republic	977K
23	Uruguay	960K
24	Brazil	951K
25	Laos	890K
26	Bolivia	888K
27	Ecuador	877K
28	Nicaragua	820K
29	Costa Rica	785K
30	Sierra Leone	683K

Canada, Norway, and New Zealand also rank among the top 10, each with more than two million cubic feet available per person. Many of the countries near the top combine relatively small populations with extensive rivers, lakes, heavy rainfall, or glacial systems.

Brazil shows how much population can change the ranking. Despite being home to vast freshwater resources, the country ranks 24th on a per-person basis, at 951,000 cubic feet.

The U.S. ranks 54th, with 297,000 cubic feet of renewable freshwater per person. That relatively modest ranking becomes more striking when compared with how much water the country withdraws: on the other side of the chart, the U.S. jumps to sixth.

Which Countries Draw the Most Water?

The ranking shifts sharply when looking at freshwater withdrawals. Montenegro leads at 127,000 cubic feet per person, followed by Turkmenistan at 85,000. The U.S. ranks sixth at 46,000.

Rank	Country	Cubic Feet of Withdrawals Per Person
1	Montenegro	127K
2	Turkmenistan	85K
3	Guyana	62K
4	Chile	59K
5	Uruguay	47K
6	U.S.	46K
7	Uzbekistan	45K
8	Azerbaijan	45K
9	Kazakhstan	44K
10	North Macedonia	42K
11	Kyrgyzstan	39K
12	Armenia	38K
13	Iran	37K
14	Suriname	35K
15	Laos	34K
16	Tajikistan	34K
17	Greece	34K
18	Iraq	34K
19	New Zealand	34K
20	Canada	33K
21	Estonia	32K
22	Eswatini	31K
23	Timor-Leste	30K
24	Argentina	29K
25	Vietnam	29K
26	Dominican Republic	29K
27	Saudi Arabia	29K
28	Libya	29K
29	Venezuela	28K
30	Thailand	28K

For Americans, that high ranking has less to do with what comes out of the kitchen faucet than with the systems behind everyday life.

U.S. farms withdrew an average 105 billion gallons of water per day for crop irrigation from 2010 to 2020, while power plants withdrew another 83 billion gallons of freshwater daily.

Importantly, withdrawals are not the same as consumption. Power plants return most of the water they withdraw, while irrigation consumes a much larger share.

Why Water Abundance Isn’t the Whole Story

Geography shapes much of the renewable water a country has available, while agriculture, industry, energy production, and population help determine how much it withdraws.

That distinction becomes more important as growing cities, farms, data centers, factories, and power systems compete for water in the same places. Even water-rich countries can face local pressure when demand is concentrated, while relatively small increases in demand can matter more in drier countries.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s largest agricultural economies.

2026-08-24 00:47:14

Mapped: Adults Living in Their Birth State

Where people live as adults can reveal a lot about a state’s population dynamics.

Some states have large shares of locally born residents, while others have much lower shares, often reflecting stronger in-migration from elsewhere in the country or abroad.

Overall, the figure for each state reflects two forces: how many current residents were born locally and how many newcomers the state has attracted.

This visualization maps the share of adults in each U.S. state who lived in the state where they were born in 2024, the latest data available as of August 2026. The data for this visualization comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.

Louisiana Has America’s Highest Share of Locally Born Adults

Despite net negative domestic migration from the state, Louisiana ranks first among all states, with 73.9% of its current adult residents born there as of 2024.

Michigan and Ohio follow closely, at 72% and 71%, respectively. These are the only three states where at least seven in 10 adults were born in the same state where they live today.

The table below ranks all 50 states and the District of Columbia by the share of adults living in the state where they were born:

Many of the highest-ranking states are in the Midwest and South. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa rank near the top, as do Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Alabama.

Pennsylvania also ranks highly, with 66% of adult residents born in the state.

Western states generally rank much lower.

One of the leading reasons adults remain in their home communities is family: among those who never left, 35% cited staying near family as a main reason.

Half of States Are Below the 50% Mark

Across the U.S., nearly one in two adults lived in their birth state in 2024, amounting to 133.7 million American adults.

Beginning with Texas at 49.7%, 25 states and D.C. had shares below 50%.

The remaining 25 states were at or above that threshold, meaning the country is almost evenly split between states where a majority of adults were born locally and those where a majority were born elsewhere.

Reasons for moving to another state often include economic factors such as better job opportunities and more affordable living arrangements, along with lifestyle and social factors.

Nevada and Florida Stand Out for In-Migration

Nevada had the lowest share in the country, with just 17% of its adult residents born in-state.

Its unusually low share reflects Nevada’s long history of rapid population growth. Between 1970 and 2025, its population increased by 572%, the largest gain of any state over that period.

However, a low share does not measure current in-migration by itself. It reflects the cumulative composition of a state’s adult population, including decades of migration and population growth.

Florida also ranked near the bottom, at 25.8%. Despite having 18.9 million adult residents, only 4.9 million were born in Florida.

Other low-ranking states include Arizona at 29.5%, Colorado at 31.9%, and Alaska at 32.6%. These states have been shaped by factors including retirement migration, job-driven moves, and more recent periods of large-scale population growth compared with many states in the Midwest and South.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed this post, check out Mapped: The Population of U.S. States Compared with Countries on Voronoi.

2026-08-23 22:24:06

Ranked: The Best and Worst Countries for Women

The Women, Peace and Security Index from the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security ranks 181 countries based on 13 indicators spanning women’s inclusion, justice, and security. Scores range from zero (worst) to one (best).

The 2025/26 edition finds that global progress in women’s status is stagnating. This visualization shows the 35 countries at each end of the index, highlighting the geographic divide between many of the world’s highest and lowest performers.

The Best Countries for Women

The table below shows the 35 highest scores in the index.

Rank	Country	Region	WPS Index Score
1	Denmark	Europe	0.94
2	Iceland	Europe	0.93
3	Norway	Europe	0.92
4	Sweden	Europe	0.92
5	Finland	Europe	0.92
6	Luxembourg	Europe	0.92
7	Belgium	Europe	0.91
8	Netherlands	Europe	0.91
9	Austria	Europe	0.90
10	New Zealand	Asia-Pacific	0.90
11	Australia	Asia-Pacific	0.90
12	Estonia	Europe	0.90
13	Ireland	Europe	0.89
14	Slovenia	Europe	0.89
15	Lithuania	Europe	0.89
16	Canada	North America	0.89
17	Latvia	Europe	0.88
18	Singapore	Asia-Pacific	0.88
19	Switzerland	Europe	0.88
20	UAE	Middle East	0.87
21	Germany	Europe	0.87
22	Japan	Asia-Pacific	0.87
23	France	Europe	0.86
24	United Kingdom	Europe	0.86
25	Spain	Europe	0.86
26	Portugal	Europe	0.86
27	Poland	Europe	0.85
28	Taiwan	Asia-Pacific	0.85
29	Serbia	Europe	0.84
30	Malta	Europe	0.84
31	United States	North America	0.84
32	Czechia	Europe	0.83
33	Hungary	Europe	0.83
34	Costa Rica	North America	0.82
35	Uruguay	South America	0.82

Europe dominates the upper end of the index, accounting for 25 of the 35 highest-scoring countries shown. New Zealand and Australia are the highest-ranked countries outside Europe, with both scoring 0.90.

Nordic countries occupy all five of the top positions. Despite their strong overall performance, researchers have also examined a “Nordic paradox” in which high levels of gender equality coexist with comparatively high reported rates of intimate-partner violence.

Canada scores 0.89, while the United States ranks 31st overall at 0.84. These rankings offer another lens on the broader geographic differences in women’s well-being around the world.

The Worst Countries for Women

At the other end of the index, the following table shows the 35 lowest scores reported by the Georgetown Institute.

Rank (Lowest)	Country	Region	WPS Index Score
1	Afghanistan	Asia-Pacific	0.28
2	Yemen	Middle East	0.32
3	Central African Republic	Africa	0.36
4	Syria	Middle East	0.36
5	Sudan	Africa	0.40
6	Haiti	North America	0.40
7	DRC	Africa	0.41
8	Burundi	Africa	0.41
9	South Sudan	Africa	0.41
10	Myanmar	Asia-Pacific	0.44
11	Cameroon	Africa	0.45
12	Somalia	Africa	0.46
13	Pakistan	Asia-Pacific	0.46
14	Madagascar	Africa	0.47
15	Palestine	Middle East	0.47
16	Mauritania	Africa	0.48
17	Chad	Africa	0.48
18	Mali	Africa	0.48
19	Niger	Africa	0.49
20	Nigeria	Africa	0.50
21	Papua New Guinea	Asia-Pacific	0.51
22	Burkina Faso	Africa	0.51
23	Guinea-Bissau	Africa	0.51
24	Iraq	Middle East	0.51
25	Liberia	Africa	0.51
26	Ethiopia	Africa	0.52
27	Bangladesh	Asia-Pacific	0.53
28	Guinea	Africa	0.53
29	Gambia	Africa	0.53
30	Kenya	Africa	0.54
31	Mozambique	Africa	0.55
32	Malawi	Africa	0.55
33	Colombia	South America	0.55
34	Eswatini	Africa	0.56
35	Mexico	North America	0.56

Conflict-affected countries are heavily represented near the bottom of the index, including Afghanistan, Yemen, the Central African Republic, Syria, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Security is an important part of the index, which measures factors including proximity to armed conflict and political violence targeting women. Afghanistan illustrates how restrictions can extend well beyond physical security: recent reporting found that just 7% of Afghan women were employed, compared with 84% of men.

Africa accounts for roughly two-thirds of the 35 lowest-scoring countries shown. However, the index stresses that national outcomes are multidimensional, combining employment and education with legal discrimination, violence, and other measures. Women’s outcomes can also diverge significantly within countries and over time, with changing demographic trends.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To explore another dimension of women’s economic participation around the world, see Which Countries Have the Most Women in the Workforce? on the Voronoi app.

2026-08-23 20:12:53

Income a Family Needs to Live Comfortably in Every State (2026)

How much does a family of four need to earn in your state?

This visualization maps the pre-tax annual income that a household with two working adults and two children needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

The data for this visualization comes from SmartAsset, with figures as of February 2026.

Comfortable living is based on a 50/30/20 budget, with 50% of earnings going toward necessities, 30% toward discretionary spending, and 20% toward savings or other financial goals. The figures therefore represent a budgeting standard rather than the minimum income needed to cover basic expenses.

Massachusetts Has the Highest Income Threshold

Massachusetts tops the ranking, with a family of four needing $329,555 per year to meet the 50/30/20 benchmark.

Hawaii follows at $313,165, while California ranks third at $302,682.

Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York aren’t far behind, bringing the number of states with comfortable-income thresholds above $290,000 to six.

Colorado and Vermont Make the Top 10

As expected, many of the highest income thresholds are concentrated in the Northeast and along the West Coast.

However, Colorado has the seventh-highest threshold in the country at $283,213, ranking above Washington and Oregon.

Vermont rounds out the top 10 at $280,384, despite having the second-smallest population of any U.S. state. Meanwhile, nearby states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island all fall outside the top 10.

Just Six States Come in Below $200,000

Despite the wide range in living costs across the country, only six states have a comfortable-income threshold below $200,000 for a family of four.

Mississippi ranks lowest at $187,533, followed by Kentucky. The states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama also fall below the $200,000 mark.

The gap between Massachusetts and Mississippi exceeds $142,000 per year, meaning the Massachusetts benchmark is about 76% higher.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Household Income Distribution in the U.S. Visualized as 100 Homes on Voronoi.

2026-08-23 00:29:55

Ranked: The Highest Mountain on Every Continent

This visualization ranks the highest mountain on each continent by elevation above sea level. The data comes from Encyclopædia Britannica and shows how each continent’s highest summit compares, measured in both feet and meters.

Mount Everest Stands Far Above the Rest

Asia’s Mount Everest, the world’s highest mountain above sea level, dominates the ranking at 29,035 feet, or 8,850 meters.

The table below ranks the highest peak on every continent by elevation, measured in feet and meters:

Rank	Continent	Mountain	Country	Peak Elevation (In Feet)	Peak Elevation (In Meters)
1	Asia	Mount Everest	Nepal, China (Tibet)	29,035	8,850
2	S. America	Mount Aconcagua	Argentina	22,831	6,959
3	N. America	Denali / Mt. McKinley	United States	20,310	6,190
4	Africa	Kilimanjaro	Tanzania	19,340	5,895
5	Europe	Mount Elbrus	Russia	18,510	5,642
6	Antarctica	Vinson Massif	Antarctica	16,050	4,892
7	Oceania	Puncak Jaya / Mt. Carstensz	Indonesia	16,024	4,884

Also known as Chomolungma or Sagarmāthā, Mount Everest is a fold mountain located between Nepal and Tibet and is still growing by about 0.078 inches each year.

Its extraordinary height is primarily due to the region’s plate tectonics. The collision between the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates has continuously forced the Himalayas upward for 40–50 million years.

A comparably extreme but inverse feature is Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, the deepest point on Earth. At 35,876 feet below sea level, it is more than a mile deeper than Mount Everest is high.

South America’s Mount Aconcagua in Argentina, the highest peak in the Western Hemisphere, ranks second at 22,831 feet.

North America follows with Denali, also known as Mount McKinley, at 20,310 feet. While Denali ranks third based on elevation above sea level, it rises farther from its terrestrial base to summit than Everest, whose base already sits at a much higher elevation.

The Remaining Four Peaks Are Below 20,000 Feet

Ranked fourth, Africa’s Kilimanjaro in Tanzania reaches 19,340 feet, while Europe’s fifth-ranked Mount Elbrus in the Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia stands at 18,510 feet.

Antarctica’s Vinson Massif ranks sixth at 16,050 feet, followed closely by Oceania’s Puncak Jaya at 16,024 feet.

Puncak Jaya, located on the Indonesian part of the island of New Guinea, ranks last among the listed continental high points. Despite its position at the bottom of the ranking, it is the world’s highest peak located on an island.

The Seven Summits Challenge

Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first people confirmed to have reached the summit of Mount Everest in 1953. A broader mountaineering challenge later emerged: the Seven Summits Challenge, which requires climbers to reach the highest peak on each of the seven continents.

Fewer than 500 climbers have completed the challenge since mountaineer Richard Bass achieved the first verified completion in 1985.

By comparison, more than 7,500 people have successfully summited Mount Everest.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Height Distribution of the Top 100 Mountains on Voronoi.