Geographic Information System Market Outlook

As per our latest research, the global Geographic Information System (GIS) market size reached USD 12.3 billion in 2024. The industry is experiencing robust expansion, driven by a surging demand for spatial data analytics across diverse sectors. The market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 11.2% from 2025 to 2033, reaching an estimated USD 31.9 billion by 2033. This accelerated growth is primarily attributed to the integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, IoT, and cloud computing with GIS solutions, as well as the increasing adoption of location-based services and smart city initiatives worldwide.

One of the primary growth factors fueling the GIS market is the rapid adoption of geospatial analytics in urban planning and infrastructure development. Governments and private enterprises are leveraging GIS to optimize land use, manage resources efficiently, and enhance public services. Urban planners utilize GIS to analyze demographic trends, plan transportation networks, and ensure sustainable development. The integration of GIS with Building Information Modeling (BIM) and real-time data feeds has further amplified its utility in smart city projects, driving demand for sophisticated GIS platforms. The proliferation of IoT devices and sensors has also enabled the collection of high-resolution geospatial data, which is instrumental in developing predictive models for urban growth and disaster management.

Another significant driver of the GIS market is the increasing need for disaster management and risk mitigation. GIS technology plays a pivotal role in monitoring natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires. By providing real-time spatial data, GIS enables authorities to make informed decisions, coordinate response efforts, and allocate resources effectively. The growing frequency and intensity of natural disasters, coupled with heightened awareness about climate change, have compelled governments and humanitarian organizations to invest heavily in advanced GIS solutions. These investments are not only aimed at disaster response but also at long-term resilience planning, thereby expanding the scope and scale of GIS applications.

The expanding application of GIS in the agriculture and utilities sectors is another crucial growth factor. Precision agriculture relies on GIS to analyze soil conditions, monitor crop health, and optimize irrigation practices, ultimately boosting productivity and sustainability. In the utilities sector, GIS is indispensable for asset management, network optimization, and outage response. The integration of GIS with remote sensing technologies and drones has revolutionized data collection and analysis, enabling more accurate and timely decision-making. Moreover, the emergence of cloud-based GIS platforms has democratized access to geospatial data and analytics, empowering small and medium enterprises to harness the power of GIS for operational efficiency and strategic planning.

From a regional perspective, North America continues to dominate the GIS market, supported by substantial investments in smart infrastructure, advanced research capabilities, and a strong presence of leading technology providers. However, Asia Pacific is emerging as the fastest-growing region, driven by rapid urbanization, government initiatives for digital transformation, and increasing adoption of GIS in agriculture and disaster management. Europe is also witnessing significant growth, particularly in transportation, environmental monitoring, and public safety applications. The Middle East & Africa and Latin America are gradually catching up, with growing investments in infrastructure development and resource management. This regional diversification is expected to drive innovation and competition in the global GIS market over the forecast period.

Component Analysis

The Geographic Information System market is segmented by component into hardware, software, and services, each playing a unique role

This data set contains landscape-scale greater sage-grouse management zones as defined by the Idaho Sage Grouse Task Force. The intended scale of use is 1:500,000. The data was developed through a collaborative process in looking at several GIS datasets. The dataset was digitized coarsely on the screen to roughly match the extent of the BLM PPH and PGH line work.

fields: [IDcat_rev1] = Core, Important, General, or Nonhabitat (areas that are islands of nonhabitat) Management Zones.

The Idaho Sage Grouse Task Force (SGTF) appointed by the Governor of Idaho, created an Idaho alternative in response to the BLM's, "A Framework to Identify Greater Sage-grouse Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat for Idaho" as seen at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/31652/38566/40466/Idaho_Sage-grouse_Priority_Areas_White_Paper_Final_April_26_2012_508.pdf.The SGTF split the BLM's designated PPH and PGH into 4 'Conservation Areas', two located north of the Snake River and two South. The Conservation Areas are split into Management Zones attributed with Core, Important, and General. This shapefile is supporting information for the content within the 'DRAFT Federal Alternative of Governor C.L. Butch Ottter for Greater Sage-Grouse Management in Idaho, June 28th, 2012' at https://gov.idaho.gov/mediacenter/execorders/eo15/Appendix%201%20(govs%20alt.%20and%20supporting%20docs).pdf

More information about SGTF

FULL FGDC METADATA

This is a connection to the Crawford County Government public platform for exploring and downloading open data, discovering and building apps, and engaging to solve important local issues. You can analyze and combine Open Datasets using maps, as well as develop new web and mobile applications. Let's make our great community even better, together!

Web/Data Disclaimer: Click here for Crawford County, PA GIS Web/Data Disclaimer

Cave-limited species display patchy and restricted distributions, but are challenging to study in-situ because of the difficulty of sampling. It is often unclear whether the observed distribution is a sampling artifact or a true restriction in range. Further, the drivers of the distribution could be local environmental conditions, such as cave humidity, or they could be associated with surface features that are surrogates for cave conditions. If surface features can be used to predict the distribution of important cave taxa, then conservation management goals can be more easily obtained. These GIS data represent the input and results of a spatial statistical model used to examine the hypothesis that the presence of major faunal groups of cave obligate species could be predicted based on features of the earth surface. Georeferenced records of cave obligate amphipods, crayfish, fish, isopods, beetles, millipedes, pseudoscorpions, spiders, and springtails within the area of Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) in the eastern United States (Illinois to Virginia, and New York to Alabama) were assigned to 20 x 20 km grid cells. Habitat suitability for these faunal groups was modeled using logistic regression with twenty predictor variables within each grid cell, such as percent karst, soil features, temperature, precipitation, and elevation. The models successfully predicted the presence of a group greater than 65 percent of the time (mean=88 percent) for the presence of single grid cell endemics, and for all faunal groups except pseudoscorpions. The most common predictor variables were latitude, percent karst, and the standard deviation of the Topographic Position Index (TPI), a measure of landscape rugosity within each grid cell. The overall success of these models points to a number of important connections between the surface and cave environments, and some of these, especially soil features and topographic variability, suggest new research directions. These models should prove to be useful tools in predicting the presence of species in understudied areas.

Many communities in Canada depend to some extent on forestry and the forest sector. The importance of the forest industry to the regional economy can be assessed using the Canadian Ecumene GIS (Geographic Information System) Database. “Ecumene” is a term used by geographers, meaning “inhabited lands.” A forest ecumene refers to areas where human settlement coincides with forested areas, including locations where people depend on the forest for their livelihood. Populated places in the ecumene database are referenced using natural boundaries, as opposed to administrative or census boundaries, and provide a more suitable means for integrating socio-economic data with ecological and environmental data in a region. The Canadian Ecumene GIS Database includes the custom boundaries for more than 4,200 populated areas across Canada, many of which were derived from remote-sensing “night-lights” imagery. Each ecumene place has a corresponding set of attributes pertaining to place name, province and other descriptive information, as well as an initial custom set of demographic and labour force variables derived from Statistics Canada Census and National Household Survey data for 2001, 2006 and 2011. An analysis of ecumene labour force data and location of mill facilities resulted in a generalized rendering showing regional dependency of the forest industry. The location of mill facilities layer includes information on mill type (i.e., pulp and saw) and ownership. The sensitivity to forest industry layer shows which forest communities and regions are more sensitive to economic impacts in the forest industry. Three layers are provided: the Canadian Ecumene GIS Database, the location of mill facilities, and the sensitivity of forest communities and regions to forest industry.

It is about updating to GIS information database, Decision Support Tool (DST) in collaboration with IWMI. With the support of the Fish for Livelihoods field team and IPs (MFF, BRAC Myanmar, PACT Myanmar, and KMSS) staff, collection of Global Positioning System GPS location data for year-1 (2019-20) 1,167 SSA farmer ponds, and year-2 (2020-21) 1,485 SSA farmer ponds were completed with different GPS mobile applications: My GPS Coordinates, GPS Status & Toolbox, GPS Essentials, Smart GPS Coordinates Locator and GPS Coordinates. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model that integrates climate change analysis with water availability will provide an important tool informing decisions on scaling pond adoption. It can also contribute to a Decision Support Tool to better target pond scaling. GIS Data also contribute to identify the location point of the F4L SSA farmers ponds on the Myanmar Map by fiscal year from 1 to 5.

This dataset is a modified version of the FWS developed data depicting “Highly Important Landscapes”, as outlined in Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 and provided to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial analysis Lab on October 29th 2014. Other names and acronyms used to refer to this dataset have included: Areas of Significance (AoSs - name of GIS data set provided by FWS), Strongholds (FWS), and Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs - BLM). The BLM will refer to these data as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs). Data were provided as a series of ArcGIS map packages which, when extracted, contained several datasets each. Based on the recommendation of the FWS Geographer/Ecologist (email communication, see data originator for contact information) the dataset called “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” was utilized as the source for subsequent analysis and refinement. Metadata was not provided by the FWS for this dataset. For detailed information regarding the dataset’s creation refer to Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 or contact the FWS directly. Several operations and modifications were made to this source data, as outlined in the “Description” and “Process Step” sections of this metadata file. Generally: The source data was named by the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab to identify polygons as described (but not identified in the GIS) in the FWS memorandum. The Nevada/California EIS modified portions within their decision space in concert with local FWS personnel and provided the modified data back to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab. Gaps around Nevada State borders, introduced by the NVCA edits, were then closed as was a large gap between the southern Idaho & southeast Oregon present in the original dataset. Features with an area below 40 acres were then identified and, based on FWS guidance, either removed or retained. Finally, guidance from BLM WO resulted in the removal of additional areas, primarily non-habitat with BLM surface or subsurface management authority. Data were then provided to each EIS for use in FEIS development. Based on guidance from WO, SFAs were to be limited to BLM decision space (surface/sub-surface management areas) within PHMA. Each EIS was asked to provide the limited SFA dataset back to the National Operations Center to ensure consistent representation and analysis. Returned SFA data, modified by each individual EIS, was then consolidated at the BLM’s National Operations Center retaining the three standardized fields contained in this dataset.Several Modifications from the original FWS dataset have been made. Below is a summary of each modification.1. The data as received from FWS: 16,514,163 acres & 1 record.2. Edited to name SFAs by Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab:Upon receipt of the “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” dataset from the FWS, a copy was made and the one existing & unnamed record was exploded in an edit session within ArcMap. A text field, “AoS_Name”, was added. Using the maps provided with Memorandum FWS/AES/058711, polygons were manually selected and the “AoS_Name” field was calculated to match the names as illustrated. Once all polygons in the exploded dataset were appropriately named, the dataset was dissolved, resulting in one record representing each of the seven SFAs identified in the memorandum.3. The NVCA EIS made modifications in concert with local FWS staff. Metadata and detailed change descriptions were not returned with the modified data. Contact Leisa Wesch, GIS Specialist, BLM Nevada State Office, 775-861-6421, lwesch@blm.gov, for details.4. Once the data was returned to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab from the NVCA EIS, gaps surrounding the State of NV were closed. These gaps were introduced by the NVCA edits, exacerbated by them, or existed in the data as provided by the FWS. The gap closing was performed in an edit session by either extending each polygon towards each other or by creating a new polygon, which covered the gap, and merging it with the existing features. In addition to the gaps around state boundaries, a large area between the S. Idaho and S.E. Oregon SFAs was filled in. To accomplish this, ADPP habitat (current as of January 2015) and BLM GSSP SMA data were used to create a new polygon representing PHMA and BLM management that connected the two existing SFAs.5. In an effort to simplify the FWS dataset, features whose areas were less than 40 acres were identified and FWS was consulted for guidance on possible removal. To do so, features from #4 above were exploded once again in an ArcMap edit session. Features whose areas were less than forty acres were selected and exported (770 total features). This dataset was provided to the FWS and then returned with specific guidance on inclusion/exclusion via email by Lara Juliusson (lara_juliusson@fws.gov). The specific guidance was:a. Remove all features whose area is less than 10 acresb. Remove features identified as slivers (the thinness ratio was calculated and slivers identified by Lara Juliusson according to https://tereshenkov.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/fighting-sliver-polygons-in-arcgis-thinness-ratio/) and whose area was less than 20 acres.c. Remove features with areas less than 20 acres NOT identified as slivers and NOT adjacent to other features.d. Keep the remainder of features identified as less than 40 acres.To accomplish “a” and “b”, above, a simple selection was applied to the dataset representing features less than 40 acres. The select by location tool was used, set to select identical, to select these features from the dataset created in step 4 above. The records count was confirmed as matching between the two data sets and then these features were deleted. To accomplish “c” above, a field (“AdjacentSH”, added by FWS but not calculated) was calculated to identify features touching or intersecting other features. A series of selections was used: first to select records 6. Based on direction from the BLM Washington Office, the portion of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (UMRBNM) that was included in the FWS SFA dataset was removed. The BLM NOC GSSP NLCS dataset was used to erase these areas from #5 above. Resulting sliver polygons were also removed and geometry was repaired.7. In addition to removing UMRBNM, the BLM Washington Office also directed the removal of Non-ADPP habitat within the SFAs, on BLM managed lands, falling outside of Designated Wilderness’ & Wilderness Study Areas. An exception was the retention of the Donkey Hills ACEC and adjacent BLM lands. The BLM NOC GSSP NLCS datasets were used in conjunction with a dataset containing all ADPP habitat, BLM SMA and BLM sub-surface management unioned into one file to identify and delete these areas.8. The resulting dataset, after steps 2 – 8 above were completed, was dissolved to the SFA name field yielding this feature class with one record per SFA area.9. Data were provided to each EIS for use in FEIS allocation decision data development.10. Data were subset to BLM decision space (surface/sub-surface) within PHMA by each EIS and returned to the NOC.11. Due to variations in field names and values, three standardized fields were created and calculated by the NOC:a. SFA Name – The name of the SFA.b. Subsurface – Binary “Yes” or “No” to indicated federal subsurface estate.c. SMA – Represents BLM, USFS, other federal and non-federal surface management 12. The consolidated data (with standardized field names and values) were dissolved on the three fields illustrated above and geometry was repaired, resulting in this dataset.

MapMasq for Protected Health Data (by GISinc).COVID-19 and regulations being put in place to slow the spread have affected all of us in many ways. There is potential for data science in conjunction with spatial analysis to inform decision-makers during this pandemic through broadly disseminated data—especially data that has protected or geomasked the PHI for HIPAA alignment. In the hope to promote additional data sharing that needs to take place, we at GISinc are offering free trial licenses (until September 20) of a tool that can help: MapMasq. About GISinc..._Communities around the world are taking strides in mitigating the threat that COVID-19 (coronavirus) poses. Geography and location analysis have a crucial role in better understanding this evolving pandemic.When you need help quickly, Esri can provide data, software, configurable applications, and technical support for your emergency GIS operations. Use GIS to rapidly access and visualize mission-critical information. Get the information you need quickly, in a way that’s easy to understand, to make better decisions during a crisis.Esri’s Disaster Response Program (DRP) assists with disasters worldwide as part of our corporate citizenship. We support response and relief efforts with GIS technology and expertise.More information...

description: Cave-limited species display patchy and restricted distributions, but are challenging to study in-situ because of the difficulty of sampling. It is often unclear whether the observed distribution is a sampling artifact or a true restriction in range. Further, the drivers of the distribution could be local environmental conditions, such as cave humidity, or they could be associated with surface features that are surrogates for cave conditions. If surface features can be used to predict the distribution of important cave taxa, then conservation management goals can be more easily obtained. These GIS data represent the input and results of a spatial statistical model used to examine the hypothesis that the presence of major faunal groups of cave obligate species could be predicted based on features of the earth surface. Georeferenced records of cave obligate amphipods, crayfish, fish, isopods, beetles, millipedes, pseudoscorpions, spiders, and springtails within the area of Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) in the eastern United States (Illinois to Virginia, and New York to Alabama) were assigned to 20 x 20 km grid cells. Habitat suitability for these faunal groups was modeled using logistic regression with twenty predictor variables within each grid cell, such as percent karst, soil features, temperature, precipitation, and elevation. The models successfully predicted the presence of a group greater than 65 percent of the time (mean=88 percent) for the presence of single grid cell endemics, and for all faunal groups except pseudoscorpions. The most common predictor variables were latitude, percent karst, and the standard deviation of the Topographic Position Index (TPI), a measure of landscape rugosity within each grid cell. The overall success of these models points to a number of important connections between the surface and cave environments, and some of these, especially soil features and topographic variability, suggest new research directions. These models should prove to be useful tools in predicting the presence of species in understudied areas.; abstract: Cave-limited species display patchy and restricted distributions, but are challenging to study in-situ because of the difficulty of sampling. It is often unclear whether the observed distribution is a sampling artifact or a true restriction in range. Further, the drivers of the distribution could be local environmental conditions, such as cave humidity, or they could be associated with surface features that are surrogates for cave conditions. If surface features can be used to predict the distribution of important cave taxa, then conservation management goals can be more easily obtained. These GIS data represent the input and results of a spatial statistical model used to examine the hypothesis that the presence of major faunal groups of cave obligate species could be predicted based on features of the earth surface. Georeferenced records of cave obligate amphipods, crayfish, fish, isopods, beetles, millipedes, pseudoscorpions, spiders, and springtails within the area of Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) in the eastern United States (Illinois to Virginia, and New York to Alabama) were assigned to 20 x 20 km grid cells. Habitat suitability for these faunal groups was modeled using logistic regression with twenty predictor variables within each grid cell, such as percent karst, soil features, temperature, precipitation, and elevation. The models successfully predicted the presence of a group greater than 65 percent of the time (mean=88 percent) for the presence of single grid cell endemics, and for all faunal groups except pseudoscorpions. The most common predictor variables were latitude, percent karst, and the standard deviation of the Topographic Position Index (TPI), a measure of landscape rugosity within each grid cell. The overall success of these models points to a number of important connections between the surface and cave environments, and some of these, especially soil features and topographic variability, suggest new research directions. These models should prove to be useful tools in predicting the presence of species in understudied areas.

Comprehensive and visual assessments utilizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) offer an empirical foundation for the planning, construction, and optimization of Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI), effectively promoting its sustainable development. A comprehensive review of this field clarifies the research methods, application scope, trends, and challenges associated with using GIS to advance UGI development. This study synthesizes research findings from the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) within the Web of Science (WOS) database, as well as from the Scopus database, for the period from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2024. The initial dataset included 640 articles from WOS and 952 articles from Scopus. After removing 1,572 duplicates and irrelevant studies, the final selection consisted of 20 articles. The integration of both WOS and Scopus databases ensures a comprehensive capture of current trends and limitations in GIS-based UGI assessments. This study centers on the scope, data sources, theoretical models, analyses, and objectives of GIS-based UGI assessments. The research indicates that over the past five years, GIS-based UGI assessments have primarily focused on areas such as accessibility, ecosystem service potential, resilience, and environmental justice, in addition to non-ecological aspects such as social benefits and aesthetics. While the integration of diverse data and analytical indicators into GIS has enhanced assessment comprehensiveness, and AI technologies have deepened data analysis, field research with urban residents remains crucial, underscoring the importance of inclusiveness in the study. This study also reveals a significant increase in interdisciplinarity in GIS-based assessments of UGI. The integration of assessment methods from ecology, computer science, urban planning, sociology, aesthetics, and other disciplines demonstrates that research in this field has fully considered ecological, social, economic, and humanistic factors, thereby more comprehensively reflecting the integrated needs of sustainable urban development.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

Natural Earth is a public domain map dataset available at 1:10m, 1:50m, and 1:110 million scales. Featuring tightly integrated vector and raster data, with Natural Earth you can make a variety of visually pleasing, well-crafted maps with cartography or GIS software.

Natural Earth was built through a collaboration of many volunteers and is supported by NACIS (North American Cartographic Information Society).

Natural Earth Vector comes in ESRI shapefile format, the de facto standard for vector geodata. Character encoding is Windows-1252.

Natural Earth Vector includes features corresponding to the following:

Cultural Vector Data Thremes:

• Countries: matched boundary lines and polygons with names attributes for countries and sovereign states. Includes dependencies (French Polynesia), map units (U.S. Pacific Island Territories) and sub-national map subunits (Corsica versus mainland Metropolitan France).
• Disputed areas and breakaway regions - From Kashmir to the Elemi Triangle, Northern Cyprus to Western Sahara.
• First order admin (provinces, departments, states, etc.): internal boundaries and polygons for all but a few tiny island nations. Includes names attributes and some statistical groupings of the same for smaller countries.
• Populated places: point symbols with name attributes. Includes capitals, major cities and towns, plus significant smaller towns in sparsely inhabited regions. We favor regional significance over population census in determining rankings.
• Urban polygons: derived from 2002-2003 MODIS satellite data.
• Parks and protected areas: US National Park Service units.
• Pacific nation groupings: boxes for keeping these far-flung islands tidy.
• Water boundary indicators: partial selection of key 200-mile nautical limits, plus some disputed, treaty, and median lines.

Physical Vector Data Themes:

• Coastline: ocean coastline, including major islands. Coastline is matched to land and water polygons.
• Land: Land polygons including major islands
• Ocean: Ocean polygon split into contiguous pieces.
• Minor Islands: additional small ocean islands ranked to two levels of relative importance.
• Reefs: major coral reefs from WDB2.
• Physical region features: polygon and point labels of major physical features.
• Rivers and Lake Centerlines: ranked by relative importance. Includes name and line width attributes. Don’t want minor lakes? Turn on their centerlines to avoid unseemly data gaps.
• Lakes: ranked by relative importance, coordinating with river ranking. Includes name attributes.
• Glaciated areas: polygons derived from DCW, except for Antarctica derived from MOA. Includes name attributes for major polar glaciers.
• Antarctic ice shelves: derived from 2003-2004 MOA. Reflects recent ice shelf collapses.
• Bathymetry: nested polygons at 0, -200, -1,000, -2,000, -3,000, -4,000, -5,000, -6,000, -7,000, -8,000, -9,000,and -10,000 meters. Created from SRTM Plus.
• Geographic lines: Polar circles, tropical circles, equator, and International Date Line.
• Graticules: 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 30-degree increments. Includes WGS84 bounding box.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

This is a vector layer of Mahe island important historical sites. This GIS layer was created by the Centre for GIS with the collaboration of the National Heritage.

Landforms are large recognizable features such as mountains, hills and plains; they are an important determinant of ecological character, habitat definition and terrain analysis. Landforms are important to the distribution of life in natural systems and are the basis for opportunities in built systems, and therefore landforms play a useful role in all natural science fields of study and planning disciplines.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: LandformsUnits: MetersCell Size: 231.91560581932 metersSource Type: ThematicPixel Type: 8-bit unsigned integerData Coordinate System: WGS 1984Mosaic Projection: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: GlobalSource: EsriPublication Date: May 2016ArcGIS Server URL: https://landscape7.arcgis.com/arcgis/In February 2017, Esri updated the World Landforms - Improved Hammond Method service with two display functions: Ecological Land Units landform classes and Ecological Facets landform classes. This layer represents Ecological Facets landform classes. You can view the Ecological Land Units landform classes by choosing Image Display, and changing the Renderer. This layer was produced using the Improved Hammond Landform Classification Algorithm produced by Esri in 2016. This algorithm published and described by Karagulle et al. 2017: Modeling global Hammond landform regions from 250-m elevation data in Transactions in GIS.The algorithm, which is based on the most recent work in this area by Morgan, J. & Lesh, A. 2005: Developing Landform Maps Using Esri’s Model Builder., Esri converted Morgan’s model into a Python script and revised it to work on global 250-meter resolution GMTED2010 elevation data. Hammond’s landform classification characterizes regions rather than identifying individual features, thus, this layer contains sixteen classes of landforms:Nearly flat plainsSmooth plains with some local reliefIrregular plains with moderate relief Irregular plains with low hillsScattered moderate hillsScattered high hillsScattered low mountainsScattered high mountainsModerate hillsHigh hills Tablelands with moderate reliefTablelands with considerable reliefTablelands with high relief Tablelands with very high relief Low mountainsHigh mountainsTo produce these classes, Esri staff first projected the 250-meter resolution GMTED elevation data to the World Equidistant Cylindrical coordinate system. Each cell in this dataset was assigned three characteristics: slope based on 3-km neighborhood, relief based on 6 km neighborhood, and profile based on 6-km neighborhood. The last step was to overlay the combination of these three characteristics with areas that are exclusively plains. Slope is the percentage of the 3-km neighborhood occupied by gentle slope. Hammond specified 8% as the threshold for gentle slope. Slope is used to define how flat or steep the terrain is. Slope was classified into one of four classes:

Percent of neighborhood over 8% of slope

Slope Classes

0 - 20%

400

21% -50%

300

51% - 80%

200

81%

100

Local Relief is the difference between the maximum and minimum elevation within in the 6-km neighborhood. Local relief is used to define terrain how rugged or the complexity of the terrain's texture. Relief was assigned one of six classes:

Change in elevation

Relief Class ID

0 – 30 meters

10

31 meter – 90 meters

20

91 meter – 150 meters

30

151 meter – 300 meters

40

301 meter – 900 meters

50

900 meters

60

The combination of slope and relief begin to define terrain as mountains, hills and plains. However, the difference between mountains or hills and tablelands cannot be distinguished using only these parameters. Profile is used to determine tableland areas. Profile identifies neighborhoods with upland and lowland areas, and calculates the percent area of gently sloping terrain within those upland and lowland areas. A 6-km circular neighborhood was used to calculate the profile parameter. Upland/lowland is determined by the difference between average local relief and elevation. In the 6-km neighborhood window, if the difference between maximum elevation and cell’s elevation is smaller than half of the local relief it’s an upland. If the difference between maximum elevation and cell’s elevation is larger than half of the local relief it’s a lowland. Profile was assigned one of five classes:

Percent of neighborhood over 8% slope in upland or lowland areas

Profile Class

Less than 50% gentle slope is in upland or lowland

0

More than 75% of gentle slope is in lowland

1

50%-75% of gentle slope is in lowland

2

50-75% of gentle slope is in upland

3

More than 75% of gentle slope is in upland

4

Early reviewers of the resulting classes noted one confusing outcome, which was that areas were classified as "plains with low mountains", or "plains with hills" were often mostly plains, and the hills or mountains were part of an adjacent set of exclusively identified hills or mountains. To address this areas that are exclusively plains were produced, and used to override these confusing areas. The hills and mountains within those areas were converted to their respective landform class.The combination of slope, relief and profile merged with the areas of plains, can be better understood using the following diagram, which uses the colors in this layer to show which classes are present and what parameter values produced them:What can you do with this layer?This layer is suitable for both visualization and analysis. It can be used in ArcGIS Online in web maps and applications and can be used in ArcGIS Desktop. This layer is part of a larger collection of landscape layers that you can use to perform a wide variety of mapping and analysis tasks.The Living Atlas of the World provides an easy way to explore the landscape layers and many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics.Geonet is a good resource for learning more about landscape layers and the Living Atlas of the World. To get started see the Living Atlas Discussion Group.The Esri Insider Blog provides an introduction to the Ecophysiographic Mapping project.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Important: This layer is meant to be viewed in conjunction with Prime Fishing Grounds of New Jersey and Prime Fishing Grounds (Points) of New Jersey. The original “New Jersey’s Recreational and Commercial Ocean Fishing Grounds” charts were first created in 1982 with a second printing in 1984. In 2003, the Division of Fish and Wildlife's Bureau of Marine Fisheries, with funding from the Coastal Management Program, updated the map in digital format for inclusion in the Department's Geographic Information System. The updating of the map was accomplished through direct interviews with recreational fishing boat captains. Prime recreational fishing grounds identified in the various publications referenced in the rule and commercially prepared sport fishing charts (Homeport Charts and Charter Boat Charts) were transferred onto two sets of NOAA nautical charts, which served as the working or base map. For fishing grounds within 20 nautical miles of the coast, NOAA nautical charts Series 12326, 12323, 12318 and 12214 at a scale of 1:80,000 were used. For fishing beyond 20 nautical miles NOAA nautical charts Series 12200 and 12300 at a scale of 1:400,000 were used. During the summer of 2003, 28 party boat captains, 47 charter boat captains and 22 private boat captains from each fishing port (inlet) along the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey were interviewed by Department staff. These recreational fishing party boat, charter boat and private boat captains were selected because they fish the ocean waters on a daily basis using a wide variety of methods to catch a variety of fish species. The interview process entailed examining the accuracy of the already delineated prime fishing areas on the base map. Fishermen modified the base map by drawing their changes on the map. In general, modifications to the boundaries of the prime fishing areas resulted in an increase to the size of the prime fishing area. In a similar fashion, the captains drew new prime fishing areas on the base maps. The revised base maps were then digitized into the New Jersey Specific Sport Ocean Fishing Grounds Coverage. In 2018, the NJ Bureau of Marine Fisheries again updated the New Jersey Prime Fishing Grounds to include all current 17 artificial reef sites, and updated Homeport Charts.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

This database contains distribution maps of 135 eastern U.S. tree species based on Importance Values (IV) derived from Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data and a geographical information system (GIS) database of Elbert L. Jr. Little's published ranges. Between 1971 and 1977, Elbert L. Jr. Little, Chief Dendrologist with the U.S. Forest Service, published a series of maps of tree species ranges based on botanical lists, forest surveys, field notes ad herbarium specimens. These published maps have become the standard reference for most U.S. and Canadian tree species ranges.

The USDA Forest Service's FIA units are charged with periodically assessing the extent, timber potential, and health of the trees in the United States. The investigators have created a spatial database of individual species IV based on the number of stems and basal area of understory and overstory trees using FIA data from more than 100,000 plots in the eastern United States. The IV ranges from 0 to 100 and gives a measure of the abundance of the species. (See the investigator's Climate Change Atlas for 80 Forest Tree Species of the Eastern United States at [http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/atlas/web_atlas.html] for details). The investigators have aggregated the plot-level IV to 20km cells.

Both sets of maps (Little's ranges and IV based on FIA data) are available for download. The Little's range maps (little.shp) are vector based and are provided as shape files. These maps can span United States or United States and Canada in extent depending on the species. The Importance Value (IV) are raster maps (asciigrid) in asciigrid format. This is an ascii file with header information that can be used to import data into ArcInfo GRID or ArcView's Spatial Analyst GIS software. The spatial resolution is 20km. These raster maps span the eastern U.S. (east of the 100th meridian) in extent.