This global accessibility map enumerates land-based travel time to the nearest densely-populated area for all areas between 85 degrees north and 60 degrees south for a nominal year 2015. Densely-populated areas are defined as contiguous areas with 1,500 or more inhabitants per square kilometer or a majority of built-up land cover types coincident with a population center of at least 50,000 inhabitants. This map was produced through a collaboration between the University of Oxford Malaria Atlas Project (MAP), Google, the European Union Joint Research Centre (JRC), and the University of Twente, Netherlands. The underlying datasets used to produce the map include roads (comprising the first ever global-scale use of Open Street Map and Google roads datasets), railways, rivers, lakes, oceans, topographic conditions (slope and elevation), landcover types, and national borders. These datasets were each allocated a speed or speeds of travel in terms of time to cross each pixel of that type. The datasets were then combined to produce a “friction surface”, a map where every pixel is allocated a nominal overall speed of travel based on the types occurring within that pixel. Least-cost-path algorithms (running in Google Earth Engine and, for high-latitude areas, in R) were used in conjunction with this friction surface to calculate the time of travel from all locations to the nearest city (by travel time). Cities were determined using the high-density-cover product created by the Global Human Settlement Project. Each pixel in the resultant accessibility map thus represents the modeled shortest time from that location to a city. Source dataset credits are as described in the accompanying paper.

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS modeled Land Cover classes for each year. See additional information about Land Cover in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011

Indeed Data Company & Job Postings Data for Talent Acquisition, HR Analytics, Business Development & Market Research

Indeed Data Company and Job Postings Data from Canaria provide one of the most comprehensive and actionable alternative data sources for understanding U.S. workforce demand, employer hiring behavior, salary trends, and regional labor market signals. Our enriched Indeed Data combines millions of detailed job postings with verified company data, salary intelligence, and Google Maps metadata—delivered in a clean, normalized, and deduplicated format that is matchable with trusted company profiles.

This Indeed Data product empowers HR, recruiting, sales, and strategy teams to answer critical questions: Who is hiring? Which roles and skills are in demand? What are the salary benchmarks? Where are talent hotspots? Updated weekly with AI-driven enrichment and deep field-level granularity, Canaria’s Indeed Data offers a high-resolution, actionable view of the U.S. labor market for industries and regions.

Use Cases: Unlocking Value with Indeed Data Company & Job Postings Data Our enriched Indeed Data transforms raw job postings into structured, analyzable insights—enabling critical workflows in:

Talent Acquisition & HR Analytics • Identify hiring trends by industry, company, location, and role specialization using Indeed Data • Benchmark competitor job descriptions, salary ranges, and benefits with Indeed Data insights • Optimize recruiting based on in-demand skills, certifications, and seniority levels derived from Indeed Data • Prioritize outreach to companies expanding hiring using real-time Indeed Data signals • Detect emerging roles, skill clusters, and shifts in talent demand through Indeed Data’s job title taxonomies

Business Development & CRM Data Enrichment • Enrich CRM and sales platforms with up-to-date hiring activity signals from Indeed Data • Identify growth and expansion opportunities by linking Indeed Data job postings with firmographics and Google Maps • Enhance lead scoring and sales targeting using Indeed Data hiring momentum and salary intelligence • Build dynamic marketing and outreach cohorts based on Indeed Data hiring behavior and labor market activity

Labor Market Research & Workforce Strategy • Analyze labor demand trends by geography and sector with Indeed Data job postings • Correlate hiring and salary trends with company size, industry, and location using Indeed Data insights • Monitor occupational growth or decline via Indeed Data’s normalized job titles and enriched fields • Support workforce planning, consulting, and government research with high-quality Indeed Data labor signals • Build predictive models and skills gap analyses powered by AI-enhanced Indeed Data

Why Choose Canaria’s Indeed Data & Job Postings Data? AI-Powered Data Enrichment & Normalization • Extracts and normalizes hard skills, soft skills, certifications, education levels, and employment type from Indeed Data job descriptions • Predicts job seniority, modality (remote, onsite, hybrid), and contract/full-time status with advanced NLP applied to Indeed Data • Maps millions of raw job titles from Indeed Data into a comprehensive taxonomy of 50,000+ standardized categories • Estimates salary ranges using parsed salaries and market benchmarks to fill gaps in Indeed Data

Deduplication & Matchability • Achieves approximately 60% deduplication using semantic similarity and metadata, ensuring clean, reliable Indeed Data • Normalizes job titles, company names, locations, and employment types for consistent Indeed Data integration • Matches every Indeed Data job posting to normalized, verified company profiles enriched with firmographics and Google Maps metadata • Enables employer-level aggregation, benchmarking, and hiring activity profiling based on Indeed Data

Who Benefits from Canaria’s Indeed Data & Job Postings Data? • HR & Talent Acquisition Teams leveraging Indeed Data to optimize recruiting pipelines, compensation benchmarking, and talent market positioning • Business Development & Sales Teams using Indeed Data hiring signals and enriched company data for lead generation and account targeting • Workforce Planners & Labor Market Analysts building predictive models and economic forecasts powered by Indeed Data insights • Consultants & Researchers performing labor market studies, competitive benchmarking, and skills gap analyses with Indeed Data • B2B Platforms & HR Tech Companies powering salary tools, recruitment analytics, and talent intelligence dashboards with Indeed Data • Government Agencies & Think Tanks monitoring employment trends and informing workforce policy using Indeed Data • BI & Analytics Teams visualizing hiring velocity, talent clusters, and compensation patterns with Indeed Data

Summary Canaria’s Indeed Data Company & Job Postings Data provides an AI-enhanced, normalized, and deduplicated view of the U.S. labor market—blending millions of job postings, salary data, company ...