This dataset includes processed climate change datasets related to climatology, hydrology, and water operations. The climatological data provided are change factors for precipitation and reference evapotranspiration gridded over the entire State. The hydrological data provided are projected stream inflows for major streams in the Central Valley, and streamflow change factors for areas outside of the Central Valley and smaller ungaged watersheds within the Central Valley. The water operations data provided are Central Valley reservoir outflows, diversions, and State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) water deliveries and select streamflow data. Most of the Central Valley inflows and all of the water operations data were simulated using the CalSim II model and produced for all projections.

These data were originally developed for the California Water Commission’s Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP). The WSIP data used as the basis for these climate change resources along with the technical reference document are located here: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/climate-change-projections-wsip-2030-2070. Additional processing steps were performed to improve user experience, ease of use for GSP development, and for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation. Furthermore, the data, tools, and guidance may be useful for purposes other than sustainable groundwater management under SGMA.

Data are provided for projected climate conditions centered around 2030 and 2070. The climate projections are provided for these two future climate periods, and include one scenario for 2030 and three scenarios for 2070: a 2030 central tendency, a 2070 central tendency, and two 2070 extreme scenarios (i.e., one drier with extreme warming and one wetter with moderate warming). The climate scenario development process represents a climate period analysis where historical interannual variability from January 1915 through December 2011 is preserved while the magnitude of events may be increased or decreased based on projected changes in precipitation and air temperature from general circulation models.

2070 Extreme Scenarios Update, September 2020

DWR has collaborated with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to improve the quality of the 2070 extreme scenarios. The 2070 extreme scenario update utilizes an improved climate period analysis method known as "quantile delta mapping" to better capture the GCM-projected change in temperature and precipitation. A technical note on the background and results of this process is provided here: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/extreme-climate-change-scenarios-for-water-supply-planning/resource/f2e1c61a-4946-4863-825f-e6d516b433ed.

Note: the original version of the 2070 extreme scenarios can be accessed in the archive posted here: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/sgma-climate-change-resources/resource/51b6ee27-4f78-4226-8429-86c3a85046f4

ABSTRACT Object-based change detection is a powerful analysis tool for remote sensing data, but few studies consider the potential of temporal semivariogram indices for mapping land-cover changes using object-based approaches. In this study, we explored and evaluated the performance of semivariogram indices calculated from remote sensing imagery, using the Normalized Differential Vegetation Index (NDVI) to detect changes in spatial features related to land cover caused by a disastrous 2015 dam failure in Brazil’s Mariana district. We calculated the NDVI from Landsat 8 images acquired before and after the disaster, then created objects by multiresolution segmentation analysis based on post-disaster images. Experimental semivariograms were computed within the image objects and semivariogram indices were calculated and selected by principal component analysis. We used the selected indices as input data to a support vector machine algorithm for classifying change and no-change classes. The selected semivariogram indices showed their effectiveness as input data for object-based change detection analysis, producing highly accurate maps of areas affected by post-dam-failure flooding in the region. This approach can be used in many other contexts for rapid and accurate assessment of such land-cover changes.

The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses. For more information on the NHDPlus dataset see the NHDPlus v2 User Guide.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Surface waters and related features of the United States and associated territories not including Alaska.Geographic Extent: The United States not including Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and American SamoaProjection: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Visible Scale: Visible at all scales but layer draws best at scales larger than 1:1,000,000Source: EPA and USGSUpdate Frequency: There is new new data since this 2019 version, so no updates planned in the futurePublication Date: March 13, 2019Prior to publication, the NHDPlus network and non-network flowline feature classes were combined into a single flowline layer. Similarly, the NHDPlus Area and Waterbody feature classes were merged under a single schema.Attribute fields were added to the flowline and waterbody layers to simplify symbology and enhance the layer's pop-ups. Fields added include Pop-up Title, Pop-up Subtitle, On or Off Network (flowlines only), Esri Symbology (waterbodies only), and Feature Code Description. All other attributes are from the original NHDPlus dataset. No data values -9999 and -9998 were converted to Null values for many of the flowline fields.What can you do with this layer?Feature layers work throughout the ArcGIS system. Generally your work flow with feature layers will begin in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Pro. Below are just a few of the things you can do with a feature service in Online and Pro.ArcGIS OnlineAdd this layer to a map in the map viewer. The layer is limited to scales of approximately 1:1,000,000 or larger but a vector tile layer created from the same data can be used at smaller scales to produce a webmap that displays across the full range of scales. The layer or a map containing it can be used in an application. Change the layer’s transparency and set its visibility rangeOpen the layer’s attribute table and make selections. Selections made in the map or table are reflected in the other. Center on selection allows you to zoom to features selected in the map or table and show selected records allows you to view the selected records in the table.Apply filters. For example you can set a filter to show larger streams and rivers using the mean annual flow attribute or the stream order attribute. Change the layer’s style and symbologyAdd labels and set their propertiesCustomize the pop-upUse as an input to the ArcGIS Online analysis tools. This layer works well as a reference layer with the trace downstream and watershed tools. The buffer tool can be used to draw protective boundaries around streams and the extract data tool can be used to create copies of portions of the data.ArcGIS ProAdd this layer to a 2d or 3d map. Use as an input to geoprocessing. For example, copy features allows you to select then export portions of the data to a new feature class. Change the symbology and the attribute field used to symbolize the dataOpen table and make interactive selections with the mapModify the pop-upsApply Definition Queries to create sub-sets of the layerThis layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World that provides an easy way to explore the landscape layers and many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics.Questions?Please leave a comment below if you have a question about this layer, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

This folder, titled "Data," contains the MATLAB code, final products, tables, and figures used in Parker, L.E., Zhang, N., Abatzoglou, J.T. et al. A variety-specific analysis of climate change effects on California winegrapes. Int J Biometeorol 68, 1559–1571 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-024-02684-8 Data Collection: Climatological data (daily maximum and minimum temperatures, precipitation, and reference evapotranspiration) were obtained from the gridMET dataset for the contemporary period (1991-2020) and from 20 global climate models (GCMs) for the mid-21st century (2040-2069) under RCP 4.5.Phenology Modeling: Variety-specific phenology models were developed using published climatic thresholds to assess chill accumulation, budburst, flowering, veraison, and maturity stages for the six winegrape varieties.Agroclimatic Metrics: Fourteen viticulturally important agroclimatic metrics were calculated, including Growing Degree Days (GDD), Cold Hardiness, Chilling Degree Days (CDD), Frost Damage Days (FDD), and others.Analysis Tools: MATLAB was used for data processing, analysis, and visualization. The MATLAB code provided in this dataset includes scripts for analyzing climate data, running phenology models, and generating visualizations.MATLAB Code: Scripts and functions used for data analysis and modeling.Processed Data: Results from phenology and agroclimatic analyses, including the projected changes in phenological stages and climate metrics for the selected varieties and AVAs.Tables: Detailed results of phenological changes and climate metrics, presented in a clear and structured format.Figures: Visual representations of the data and results, including charts and maps illustrating the impacts of climate change on winegrape development stages and agroclimatic conditions. Research Description: This study investigates the impacts of climate change on the phenology and agroclimatic metrics of six winegrape varieties (Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Zinfandel, Pinot Gris, Sauvignon Blanc) across multiple California American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). Using climatological data and phenology models, the research quantifies changes in key development stages and viticulturally important climate metrics for the mid-21st century.

NDS is an interactive, web-based system, for the visualization of multidimensional neighborhood dynamics across the 50 largest US Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) from 1980 to 2010 (http://neighborhooddynamics.dreamhosters.com). Four different visualization tools are developed: (1) an interactive time slider to show neighborhood classification changes for different years; (2) multiple interactive bar charts for each variables of each neighborhood; (3) an animated neighborhood’s trajectory and sequence cluster on a self-organizing map (SOM) output space; and (4) a synchronized visualization tool showing maps for four time stamps at once. The development of this interactive online platform for visualizing dynamics overcomes many of the challenges associated with communicating changes for multiple variables, across multiple time stamps, and for a large geographic area when relying upon static maps. The system enables users to select and dive into details on particular neighborhoods and explore their changes over time.

Morphed extreme weather data for 2 Finnish locations: Vantaa and Sodankylä. Created for "Near-, medium- and long-term impacts of climate change on the thermal energy consumption of buildings in Finland under RCP climate scenarios" publication (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131636). Used climate change scenarios are RPC2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Data is created for 2030, 2050 and 2080 and includes 6 extreme weather scenarios:

W1 - Winter with high heating demand

W2 - Winter with low heating demand

W3 - Winter with the coldest individual day by average temperature

S1 - Summer with the lowest cooling demand

S2 - Summer with the highest heating demand

S3 - Summer with the warmest individual day by average temperature

Selected years and the procedure for their selection are described in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131636.

Original weather data is downloaded for the selected years from Finnish Meteorological Institute's Open data repository: https://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/havaintojen-lataus under CC BY 4.0 licence.

Future change in climate is based on Finnish Meteorological Institute's data used in creating Test Reference Year weather files (https://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/energialaskenta-try2020) for which the climate change data is presented by Ruosteenoja et al. (2016).

The data is statistically downscaled through a method called morphing created by Belcher et al. (2005) with some parts using methods from Räisänen & Räty (2013) and Jylhä et al, (2015). Morphing was computationally conducted through created software https://github.com/japulk/Weather-Morphing-Tool For additional information please refer to original article or contact the authors.

Context

This dataset contains a selection of resources from SEDAC, the SocioEconomic Data & Applications Center. SEDAC is part of NASA's Earth Observing System Data and Information System, and this data was originally hosted by CIESIN at Columbia University, here. While the SEDAC repository contains many more resources, these were selected due to their recent nature and applicability to the CDP analytics challenge.

These datasets contain a mixture of tabular and geospatial data for analysis and visualization. Full citations for the included datasets are provided below.

Content

These datasets concern environmental and socioeconomic features along with their geographic distribution. There are eight subdirectories, one for each dataset:

Trends in Freshwater Availability

The Trends in Global Freshwater Availability from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), 2002-2016, is a global gridded data set at a spatial resolution of 0.5 degrees that presents trends (rate of change measured in centimeters per year) in freshwater availability based on data obtained from 2002 to 2016 by NASA GRACE. Terrestrial water availability storage is the sum of groundwater, soil moisture, snow and ice, surface waters, and wet biomass, expressed as an equivalent height of water. GRACE measures changes in the terrestrial water cycle by assessing small changes in Earth's gravity field. This observation-based assessment of how the world's water cycle is responding to human impacts and climate variations provides an important tool for evaluating and predicting emerging threats to water and food security.

https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/downloads/maps/sdei/sdei-trends-freshwater-availability-grace/sdei-trends-freshwater-availability-grace-global-2002-2016.jpg" alt=""> GRACE Freshwater availability trends 2002-2016

This data is stored in TIFF format. For a guide on how to work with TIFF data, please consult the introductory notebook. Data was downloaded from: https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/sdei-trends-freshwater-availability-grace

Development Threat Index

The Development Threat Index data set is a terrestrial global, future development threat map based on combining these resources: agricultural expansion, urban expansion, conventional oil and gas, unconventional oil and gas, coal, mining, biofuels, solar, and wind. Each threat ranked potential development from 0-100 with 100 indicating the highest potential for future development of the resource and were produced at a 50 square kilometer (km2) grid cell resolution, excluding all cells overlapping Antarctica and those with >50% considered marine. The main file contains a cumulative score for the development threat score of each grid square (see accompanying notebook).

https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/downloads/maps/lulc/lulc-development-threat-index/lulc-development-threat-index.jpg" alt="">

This data is in TIFF format. For a guide on how to work with TIFF data, please consult the introductory notebook. Data was downloaded from: https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/lulc-development-threat-index

Environmental Performance Index

The 2018 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranks 180 countries on 24 performance indicators in the following 10 issue categories: air quality, water and sanitation, heavy metals, biodiversity and habitat, forests, fisheries, climate and energy, air pollution, water resources, and agriculture.

https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/geoserver/ows?service=WMS&version=1.1.0&request=GetMap&bbox=-180,-60,180,85&width=375&height=151&srs=EPSG:4326&format=image%2Fpng&transparent=true&layers=epi:epi-environmental-performance-index-2018_eco-air-pollution,cartographic:national-boundaries" alt=""> EPI 2018 - Air pollution [image source: SEDAC]

https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/geoserver/ows?service=WMS&version=1.1.0&request=GetMap&bbox=-180,-60,180,85&width=375&height=151&srs=EPSG:4326&format=image%2Fpng&transparent=true&layers=epi:epi-environmental-performance-index-2018_eco-water-resources,cartographic:national-boundaries" alt=""> EPI 2018 - Water resources [image source: SEDAC]

This data is stored in .xlsx format. For a guide on how to extract the different tables, please consult the introductory notebook. Data was downloaded from: https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/epi-environmental-performance-index-2018

Climate Effects on Food Supply

The Effects of Climate Change on Global Food Production from SRES Emissions and Socioeconomic Scenarios is an update to a major crop modeling study by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The initial study was published in 1997, based on output of HadCM2 model forced with greenhouse gas concentration from the IS95 emission scenari...

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produces Flood Insurance Rate maps and identifies Special Flood Hazard Areas as part of the National Flood Insurance Program's floodplain management. Special Flood Hazard Areas have regulations that include the mandatory purchase of flood insurance.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Flood Hazard AreasCoordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: Contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas Islands and American Samoa.Visible Scale: The layer is limited to scales of 1:1,000,000 and larger. Use the USA Flood Hazard Areas imagery layer for smaller scales.Source: Federal Emergency Management AgencyPublication Date: October 13, 2021This layer is derived from the October 13, 2021 version of the National Flood Hazard Layer feature class S_Fld_Haz_Ar. The data were aggregated into eight classes to produce the Esri Symbology field based on symbology provided by FEMA. All other layer attributes are derived from the National Flood Hazard Layer.The layer was projected to Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere, then the repair geometry geoprocessing tool was run on it. Its resolution was set to 0.0001 meter.To improve performance Flood Zone values "Area Not Included", "Open Water", "D", "NP", and No Data were removed from the layer. Areas with Flood Zone value "X" subtype "Area of Minimal Flood Hazard" were also removed. An imagery layer created from this dataset provides access to the full set of records in the National Flood Hazard Layer.A web map featuring this layer is available for you to use.What can you do with this Feature Layer?Feature layers work throughout the ArcGIS system. Generally your work flow with feature layers will begin in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Pro. Below are just a few of the things you can do with a feature service in Online and Pro.ArcGIS OnlineAdd this layer to a map in the map viewer. The layer is limited to scales of approximately 1:1,000,000 or larger but an imagery layer created from the same data can be used at smaller scales to produce a webmap that displays across the full range of scales. The layer or a map containing it can be used in an application.Change the layer’s transparency and set its visibility rangeOpen the layer’s attribute table and make selections and apply filters. Selections made in the map or table are reflected in the other. Center on selection allows you to zoom to features selected in the map or table and show selected records allows you to view the selected records in the table.Change the layer’s style and filter the data. For example, you could change the symbology field to Special Flood Hazard Area and set a filter for = “T” to create a map of only the special flood hazard areas. Add labels and set their propertiesCustomize the pop-upUse in analysis tools to discover patterns in the dataArcGIS ProAdd this layer to a 2d or 3d map. The same scale limit as Online applies in ProUse as an input to geoprocessing. For example, copy features allows you to select then export portions of the data to a new feature class. Areas up to 1,000-2,000 features can be exported successfully.Change the symbology and the attribute field used to symbolize the dataOpen table and make interactive selections with the mapModify the pop-upsApply Definition Queries to create sub-sets of the layerThis layer is part of the Living Atlas of the World that provides an easy way to explore the landscape layers and many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produces Flood Insurance Rate maps and identifies Special Flood Hazard Areas as part of the National Flood Insurance Program's floodplain management. Special Flood Hazard Areas have regulations that include the mandatory purchase of flood insurance. Dataset Summary Phenomenon Mapped: Flood Hazard AreasCoordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: Contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas Islands and American Samoa.Visible Scale: The layer is limited to scales of 1:1,000,000 and larger. Use the USA Flood Hazard Areas imagery layer for smaller scales.Source: Federal Emergency Management AgencyPublication Date: May 7, 2025 This layer is derived from the May 7, 2025 version of the National Flood Hazard Layer feature class S_Fld_Haz_Ar. The data were aggregated into eight classes to produce the Esri Symbology field based on symbology provided by FEMA. All other layer attributes are derived from the National Flood Hazard Layer. The layer was projected to Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere, then the repair geometry geoprocessing tool was run on it. Its resolution was set to 0.0001 meter. To improve performance Flood Zone values "Area Not Included", "Open Water", "D", "NP", and No Data were removed from the layer. Areas with Flood Zone value "X" subtype "Area of Minimal Flood Hazard" were also removed. An imagery layer created from this dataset provides access to the full set of records in the National Flood Hazard Layer. A web map featuring this layer is available for you to use. What can you do with this Feature Layer? Feature layers work throughout the ArcGIS system. Generally your work flow with feature layers will begin in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Pro. Below are just a few of the things you can do with a feature service in Online and Pro. ArcGIS OnlineAdd this layer to a map in the map viewer. The layer is limited to scales of approximately 1:1,000,000 or larger but an imagery layer created from the same data can be used at smaller scales to produce a webmap that displays across the full range of scales. The layer or a map containing it can be used in an application.Change the layer’s transparency and set its visibility rangeOpen the layer’s attribute table and make selections and apply filters. Selections made in the map or table are reflected in the other. Center on selection allows you to zoom to features selected in the map or table and show selected records allows you to view the selected records in the table.Change the layer’s style and filter the data. For example, you could change the symbology field to Special Flood Hazard Area and set a filter for = “T” to create a map of only the special flood hazard areas. Add labels and set their propertiesCustomize the pop-upUse in analysis tools to discover patterns in the dataArcGIS ProAdd this layer to a 2d or 3d map. The same scale limit as Online applies in ProUse as an input to geoprocessing. For example, copy features allows you to select then export portions of the data to a new feature class. Areas up to 1,000-2,000 features can be exported successfully.Change the symbology and the attribute field used to symbolize the dataOpen table and make interactive selections with the mapModify the pop-upsApply Definition Queries to create sub-sets of the layerThis layer is part of the Living Atlas of the World that provides an easy way to explore the landscape layers and many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics.

The National Hydrography Dataset Plus High Resolution (NHDplus High Resolution) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US Geological Survey, NHDPlus High Resolution provides mean annual flow and velocity estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses.For more information on the NHDPlus High Resolution dataset see the User’s Guide for the National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) High Resolution.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Surface waters and related features of the United States and associated territoriesGeographic Extent: The Contiguous United States, Hawaii, portions of Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, and American SamoaProjection: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Visible Scale: Visible at all scales but layer draws best at scales larger than 1:1,000,000Source: USGSUpdate Frequency: AnnualPublication Date: July 2022This layer was symbolized in the ArcGIS Map Viewer and while the features will draw in the Classic Map Viewer the advanced symbology will not. Prior to publication, the network and non-network flowline feature classes were combined into a single flowline layer. Similarly, the Area and Waterbody feature classes were merged under a single schema.Attribute fields were added to the flowline and waterbody layers to simplify symbology and enhance the layer's pop-ups. Fields added include Pop-up Title, Pop-up Subtitle, Esri Symbology (waterbodies only), and Feature Code Description. All other attributes are from the original dataset. No data values -9999 and -9998 were converted to Null values.What can you do with this layer?Feature layers work throughout the ArcGIS system. Generally your work flow with feature layers will begin in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Pro. Below are just a few of the things you can do with a feature service in Online and Pro.ArcGIS OnlineAdd this layer to a map in the map viewer. The layer or a map containing it can be used in an application. Change the layer’s transparency and set its visibility rangeOpen the layer’s attribute table and make selections. Selections made in the map or table are reflected in the other. Center on selection allows you to zoom to features selected in the map or table and show selected records allows you to view the selected records in the table.Apply filters. For example you can set a filter to show larger streams and rivers using the mean annual flow attribute or the stream order attribute.Change the layer’s style and symbologyAdd labels and set their propertiesCustomize the pop-upUse as an input to the ArcGIS Online analysis tools. This layer works well as a reference layer with the trace downstream and watershed tools. The buffer tool can be used to draw protective boundaries around streams and the extract data tool can be used to create copies of portions of the data.ArcGIS ProAdd this layer to a 2d or 3d map.Use as an input to geoprocessing. For example, copy features allows you to select then export portions of the data to a new feature class.Change the symbology and the attribute field used to symbolize the dataOpen table and make interactive selections with the mapModify the pop-upsApply Definition Queries to create sub-sets of the layerThis layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World that provides an easy way to explore the landscape layers and many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics.Questions?Please leave a comment below if you have a question about this layer, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Fast flood extent monitoring with SAR change detection using Google Earth Engine This dataset develops a tool for near real-time flood monitoring through a novel combining of multi-temporal and multi-source remote sensing data. We use a SAR change detection and thresholding method, and apply sensitivity analytics and thresholding calibration, using SAR-based and optical-based indices in a format that is streamlined, reproducible, and geographically agile. We leverage the massive repository of satellite imagery and planetary-scale geospatial analysis tools of GEE to devise a flood inundation extent model that is both scalable and replicable. The flood extents from the 2021 Hurricane Ida and the 2017 Hurricane Harvey were selected to test the approach. The methodology provides a fast, automatable, and geographically reliable tool for assisting decision-makers and emergency planners using near real-time multi-temporal satellite SAR data sets. GEE code was developed by Ebrahim Hamidi and reviewed by Brad G. Peter; Figures were created by Brad G. Peter. This tool accompanies a publication Hamidi et al., 2023: E. Hamidi, B. G. Peter, D. F. Muñoz, H. Moftakhari and H. Moradkhani, "Fast Flood Extent Monitoring with SAR Change Detection Using Google Earth Engine," in IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2023.3240097. GEE input datasets: Methodology flowchart: Sensitivity Analysis: GEE code (muti-source and multi-temporal flood monitoring): https://code.earthengine.google.com/7f4942ab0c73503e88287ad7e9187150 The threshold sensitivity analysis is automated in the below GEE code: https://code.earthengine.google.com/a3fbfe338c69232a75cbcd0eb6bc0c8e The above scripts can be run independently. The threshold automation code identifies the optimal threshold values for use in the flood monitoring procedure. GEE code for Hurricane Harvey, east of Houston Java script: // Study Area Boundaries var bounds = /* color: #d63000 */ee.Geometry.Polygon( [[[-94.5214452285728, 30.165244882083663], [-94.5214452285728, 29.56024879238989], [-93.36650748443218, 29.56024879238989], [-93.36650748443218, 30.165244882083663]]], null, false); // [before_start,before_end,after_start,after_end,k_ndfi,k_ri,k_diff,mndwi_threshold] var params = ['2017-06-01','2017-06-15','2017-08-01','2017-09-10',1.0,0.25,0.8,0.4] // SAR Input Data var before_start = params[0] var before_end = params[1] var after_start = params[2] var after_end = params[3] var polarization = "VH" var pass_direction = "ASCENDING" // k Coeficient Values for NDFI, RI and DII SAR Indices (Flooded Pixel Thresholding; Equation 4) var k_ndfi = params[4] var k_ri = params[5] var k_diff = params[6] // MNDWI flooded pixels Threshold Criteria var mndwi_threshold = params[7] // Datasets ----------------------------------- var dem = ee.Image("USGS/3DEP/10m").select('elevation') var slope = ee.Terrain.slope(dem) var swater = ee.Image('JRC/GSW1_0/GlobalSurfaceWater').select('seasonality') var collection = ee.ImageCollection('COPERNICUS/S1_GRD') .filter(ee.Filter.eq('instrumentMode', 'IW')) .filter(ee.Filter.listContains('transmitterReceiverPolarisation', polarization)) .filter(ee.Filter.eq('orbitProperties_pass', pass_direction)) .filter(ee.Filter.eq('resolution_meters', 10)) .filterBounds(bounds) .select(polarization) var before = collection.filterDate(before_start, before_end) var after = collection.filterDate(after_start, after_end) print("before", before) print("after", after) // Generating Reference and Flood Multi-temporal SAR Data ------------------------ // Mean Before and Min After ------------------------ var mean_before = before.mean().clip(bounds) var min_after = after.min().clip(bounds) var max_after = after.max().clip(bounds) var mean_after = after.mean().clip(bounds) Map.addLayer(mean_before, {min: -29.264204107025904, max: -8.938093778644141, palette: []}, "mean_before",0) Map.addLayer(min_after, {min: -29.29334290990966, max: -11.928313976797138, palette: []}, "min_after",1) // Flood identification ------------------------ // NDFI ------------------------ var ndfi = mean_before.abs().subtract(min_after.abs()) .divide(mean_before.abs().add(min_after.abs())) var ndfi_filtered = ndfi.focal_mean({radius: 50, kernelType: 'circle', units: 'meters'}) // NDFI Normalization ----------------------- var ndfi_min = ndfi_filtered.reduceRegion({ reducer: ee.Reducer.min(), geometry: bounds, scale: 10, maxPixels: 1e13 }) var ndfi_max = ndfi_filtered.reduceRegion({ reducer: ee.Reducer.max(), geometry: bounds, scale: 10, maxPixels: 1e13 }) var ndfi_rang = ee.Number(ndfi_max.get('VH')).subtract(ee.Number(ndfi_min.get('VH'))) var ndfi_subtctMin = ndfi_filtered.subtract(ee.Number(ndfi_min.get('VH'))) var ndfi_norm = ndfi_subtctMin.divide(ndfi_rang) Map.addLayer(ndfi_norm, {min: 0.3862747346632676, max: 0.7632898395906615}, "ndfi_norm",0) var histogram = ui.Chart.image.histogram({ image: ndfi_norm, region: bounds, scale: 10, maxPixels: 1e13 })...

Aim: Correlative species distribution models (SDMs) are among the most frequently used tools for conservation planning under climate and land-use changes. Conservation-focused climate change studies are often conducted on a national or local level and can use different sources of occurrence records (e.g., local databases, national biodiversity monitoring) collated at different geographic extents. However, little is known about how these restrictions in geographic space (i.e., Wallacean shortfall) can lead to restrictions in environmental space (i.e. Hutchinsonian shortfall) and accordingly affect conclusions about a species’ vulnerability to climate change.

Location: Americas with a focus on Mexico.

Methods: We present an example study constructing SDMs for three Mexican tree species (Alnus acuminata, Liquidambar styraciflua and Quercus xalapensis) using datasets collated at a global (Americas), national (Mexico) and local (cloud forests of eastern Mexico) level to demonstrate the potential effects of a Wallacean shortfall on the estimation of the environmental niche - and thus on a Hutchinsonian shortfall -, its projection in space and time and, consequently, on species’ potential vulnerability to climate change.

Results: The consequence of using the three datasets was species-specific and strongly depended on the extent to which the Wallacean shortfall affected estimations of environmental niches (i.e., Hutchinsonian shortfall). Where restrictions in geographic space lead to an underestimation of the environmental niche, vulnerability to climate change was estimated to be substantially higher. Additionally, the restrictions in geographic space may increase the likelihood of issues with non-analog climates, increasing model uncertainty.

Main Conclusion: We recommend to assess the extent to which a species’ entire realized environmental niche is captured within the target conservation area, and increasing the geographic extent, if needed, to account for environments and occurrences reflecting potential future conditions. This way, the risk of underestimating the climatic potential of the species (i.e., Hutchinsonian shortfall), as well as the errors induced by extrapolation into “locally novel” climates, can be minimised.

Methods

The global dataset was created by downloading all occurrence records of the target species from GBIF (GBIF.org 14 January 2020, GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.g2yss3) and then cleaning the data by removing those with no geographical coordinates, coordinate uncertainty greater than 1000 m, or incorrect or duplicate coordinates; or with the observation dated prior to 1950. We therefore only kept records with no known coordinate issues, and for which the basis of observation in GBIF was reported as “human observation”, “observation”, “specimen”, “living specimen”, “literature occurrence”, and “material sample”. All records outside of the Americas were removed as these represent non-native locations often associated with (botanical) gardens and parks (e.g., Vetaas, 2002) or other urban areas (Booth, 2017). These highly human-modified environments (e.g. watering or shelter from extreme climate) rather represent the fundamental niche and are often not well reflected by global climate data, and would therefore introduce other niche dimensions or bias to the model.

The national dataset was identical to the global but with occurrence records restricted to Mexico.

The local dataset was compiled by more intensive resource collection, based on previous studies developed in the Laboratory of Plant-Atmosphere Interaction from the Institute of Ecology, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR), and the United States Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). This local dataset is focused on the cloud forests of eastern Mexico (Figure S1).

To limit the effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling bias, we disaggregated the occurrence records in all datasets by removing occurrences closer than 5 km from each other using the R-package spThin (Aiello-Lammens et al., 2015). The final numbers of occurrences per species and dataset are given in Table 1.

Usage Notes

See readme.txt for details on data.

Geodatabase: N/AGeodatabase Filename: N/A Creation Date: November 9, 2023Update Date: Currently up-to-dateData Location: AGOLData Type: ExperienceData Subtype: N/AHub Site List:GIS Data StoreData Description:Public zoning application for the City of New Haven Data Update Log:12/01/2023Square footage added to pop-upParcels Query Builder tool added to allow spatial query of a desired group of parcels and export of their attributes to csvPrint Widget added12/06/2023Parcels Query Builder tool modified to add selected feature as an input option12/07/2023Popup modified so that parcel and zone attributes can now be viewed from a single popup. Sidebar removed.12/14/2024Parcel Query Builder tool moved to the right hand corner next to the print widget icon.Invisible box preventing functionality of the measure tool was removed.01/11/2024Contact information for application change requests added02/01/2024Search map tool replaced with Search widget to allow for utilization of New Haven locator02/29/2024Search widget source switched from locator to parcel layer so that the application will zoom to and select the parcel with the address entered in the Search widget.09/06/2024Button linking to DEEP's Coastal Boundary web map added to the application.03/07/2025Parcel Query Builder widget switched to reference the newly-added New Haven Parcels Management image layer03/12/2025Parcel Query Builder now allows for queries based on a selected parcel. Default distance set to 200 feet.Data Error Log:None

Dynamic models for range expansion provide a promising tool for assessing species’ capacity to respond to climate change by shifting their ranges to new areas. However, these models include a number of uncertainties which may affect how successfully they can be applied to climate change oriented conservation planning. We used RangeShifter, a novel dynamic and individual-based modelling platform, to study two potential sources of such uncertainties: the selection of land cover data and the parameterization of key life-history traits. As an example, we modelled the range expansion dynamics of two butterfly species, one habitat specialist (Maniola jurtina) and one generalist (Issoria lathonia). Our results show that projections of total population size, number of occupied grid cells and the mean maximal latitudinal range shift were all clearly dependent on the choice made between using CORINE land cover data vs. using more detailed grassland data from three alternative national databases. Range expansion was also sensitive to the parameterization of the four considered life-history traits (magnitude and probability of long-distance dispersal events, population growth rate and carrying capacity), with carrying capacity and magnitude of long-distance dispersal showing the strongest effect. Our results highlight the sensitivity of dynamic species population models to the selection of existing land cover data and to uncertainty in the model parameters and indicate that these need to be carefully evaluated before the models are applied to conservation planning.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (HBMI), has developed tools to assess the effects climate change on hydrology and water temperatures in the Meduxnekeag River Watershed in Maine. A USGS Scientific Investigations Report (SIR) report documents tools and datasets developed by the USGS to evaluate how climate change will affect the hydrology and water temperature in the watershed. Future hydrologic climate projections were developed based on changes to the precipitation and air-temperature input to the USGS Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) (Markstrom and others, 2015) version 5.1.0. The baseline input data sets to the model were precipitation and air temperature data from 1980 to 2016. Future scenarios included increases in precipitation by 0-, 5- , 10, and 15-percent and increase in air temperature by 0, 3.6, 7.0, and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The data include the input to and output from the PRMS developed to provide streamflow and water temperature simulations under selected changes in air temperature and precipitation. The data also includes shapefiles of the hydrologic response units and stream segments with identifiers matching those in the PRMS model. Markstrom, S.L., Regan, R.S., Hay, L.E., Viger, R.J., Webb, R.M.T., Payn, R.A., and LaFontaine, J.H., 2015, PRMS–IV, the precipitation-runoff modeling system, version 4: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, chap. B7, 158 p., accessed October 1, 2018, at https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6B7.

A validation assessment of Land Cover Monitoring, Assessment, and Projection (LCMAP) Collection 1 annual land cover products (1985–2017) for the Conterminous United States was conducted with an independently collected reference data set. Reference data land cover attributes were assigned by trained interpreters for each year of the time series (1984–2018) to a reference sample of 24,971 Landsat resolution (30m x 30m) pixels. These pixels were randomly selected from a sample frame of all pixels in the Landsat Analysis Ready Data (ARD) grid system which fell within the map area (Dwyer et al., 2018). Interpretation used the TimeSync reference data collection tool which visualizes Landsat images and Landsat data values for all usable images in the time series (1984–2018) (Cohen et al., 2010). Interpreters also referred to air photos and high resolution images available in Google Earth as well as several ancillary data layers. The interpreted land cover attributes were crosswalked to ...

Taxonomic names associated with digitized biocollections labels have flooded into repositories such as GBIF, iDigBio and VertNet. The names on these labels are often misspelled, out of date, or present other problems, as they were often captured only once during accessioning of specimens, or have a history of label changes without clear provenance. Before records are reliably usable in research, it is critical that these issues be addressed. However, still missing is an assessment of the scope of the problem, the effort needed to solve it, and a way to improve effectiveness of tools developed to aid the process. We present a carefully human-vetted analysis of 1000 verbatim scientific names taken at random from those published via the data aggregator VertNet, providing the first rigorously reviewed, reference validation data set. In addition to characterizing formatting problems, human vetting focused on detecting misspelling, synonymy, and the incorrect use of Darwin Core. Our results reveal a sobering view of the challenge ahead, as less than 47% of name strings were found to be currently valid. More optimistically, nearly 97% of name combinations could be resolved to a currently valid name, suggesting that computer-aided approaches may provide feasible means to improve digitized content. Finally, we associated names back to biocollections records and fit logistic models to test potential drivers of issues. A set of candidate variables (geographic region, year collected, higher-level clade, and the institutional digitally accessible data volume) and their 2-way interactions all predict the probability of records having taxon name issues, based on model selection approaches. We strongly encourage further experiments to use this reference data set as a means to compare automated or computer-aided taxon name tools for their ability to resolve and improve the existing wealth of legacy data.

Climate change and land use change have been shown to influence lake temperatures and water clarity in different ways. To better understand the diversity of lake responses to climate change and give managers tools to manage individual lakes, we focused on improving prediction accuracy for daily water temperature profiles and optical habitat in 881 lakes in Minnesota during 1980-2018.

The data are organized into these items:

1. Lake Information - A lake metadata file and one shapefile of polygons for all 881 lakes in this study
2. Observations - Temperature observations the lakes used in this study
3. Model Configurations - Model parameters
4. Model Inputs - Data used to drive predictive models
5. Model Predictions - Predictions for water temperature and near-surface irradiance
6. Model Evaluation - Evaluation of model performance for water temperature predictions
7. Habitat Estimates - Estimates of thermal habitat, optical habitat, and thermal-optical habitat area



This research was funded by the Department of the Interior Northeast and North Central Climate Adaptation Science Centers, a Midwest Glacial Lakes Fish Habitat Partnership grant through F&WS Access to computing facilities was provided by USGS Advanced Research Computing, USGS Yeti Supercomputer (https://doi.org/10.5066/F7D798MJ). We thank North Temperate Lakes Long-Term Ecological Research (NSF DEB-1440297) and Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (NSF #1702991).

Abstract

The Global Findex 2025 reveals how mobile technology is equipping more adults around the world to own and use financial accounts to save formally, access credit, make and receive digital payments, and pursue opportunities. Including the inaugural Global Findex Digital Connectivity Tracker, this fifth edition of Global Findex presents new insights on the interactions among mobile phone ownership, internet use, and financial inclusion.

The Global Findex is the world’s most comprehensive database on digital and financial inclusion. It is also the only global source of comparable demand-side data, allowing cross-country analysis of how adults access and use mobile phones, the internet, and financial accounts to reach digital information and resources, save, borrow, make payments, and manage their financial health. Data for the Global Findex 2025 were collected from nationally representative surveys of about 145,000 adults in 141 economies. The latest edition follows the 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2021 editions and includes new series measuring mobile phone ownership and internet use, digital safety, and frequency of transactions using financial services.

The Global Findex 2025 is an indispensable resource for policy makers in the fields of digital connectivity and financial inclusion, as well as for practitioners, researchers, and development professionals.

Geographic coverage

National Coverage

Analysis unit

Individual

Kind of data

Observation data/ratings [obs]

Sampling procedure

In most low- and middle-income economies, Global Findex data were collected through face-to-face interviews. In these economies, an area frame design was used for interviewing. In most high-income economies, telephone surveys were used. In 2024, face-to-face interviews were again conducted in 22 economies after phone-based surveys had been employed in 2021 as a result of mobility restrictions related to COVID-19. In addition, an abridged form of the questionnaire was administered by phone to survey participants in Algeria, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Libya, Mauritius, and Ukraine because of economy-specific restrictions. In just one economy, Singapore, did the interviewing mode change from face to face in 2021 to phone based in 2024.

In economies in which face-to-face surveys were conducted, the first stage of sampling was the identification of primary sampling units. These units were then stratified by population size, geography, or both and clustered through one or more stages of sampling. Where population information was available, sample selection was based on probabilities proportional to population size; otherwise, simple random sampling was used. Random route procedures were used to select sampled households. Unless an outright refusal occurred, interviewers made up to three attempts to survey each sampled household. To increase the probability of contact and completion, attempts were made at different times of the day and, where possible, on different days. If an interview could not be completed at a household that was initially part of the sample, a simple substitution method was used to select a replacement household for inclusion.

Respondents were randomly selected within sampled households. Each eligible household member (that is, all those ages 15 or older) was listed, and a handheld survey device randomly selected the household member to be interviewed. For paper surveys, the Kish grid method was used to select the respondent. In economies in which cultural restrictions dictated gender matching, respondents were randomly selected from among all eligible adults of the interviewer’s gender.

In economies in which Global Findex surveys have traditionally been phone based, respondent selection followed the same procedure as in previous years, using random digit dialing or a nationally representative list of phone numbers. In most economies in which mobile phone and landline penetration is high, a dual sampling frame was used.

The same procedure for respondent selection was applied to economies in which phone-based interviews were being conducted for the first time. Dual-frame (landline and mobile phone) random digit dialing was used where landline presence and use are 20 percent or higher based on historical Gallup estimates. Mobile phone random digit dialing was used in economies with limited or no landline presence (less than 20 percent). For landline respondents in economies in which mobile phone or landline penetration is 80 percent or higher, respondents were selected randomly by using either the next-birthday method or the household enumeration method, which involves listing all eligible household members and randomly selecting one to participate. For mobile phone respondents in these economies or in economies in which mobile phone or landline penetration is less than 80 percent, no further selection was performed. At least three attempts were made to reach the randomly selected person in each household, spread over different days and times of day.

Research instrument

The English version of the questionnaire is provided for download.

Sampling error estimates

Estimates of standard errors (which account for sampling error) vary by country and indicator. For country-specific margins of error, please refer to the Methodology section and corresponding table in: Klapper, Leora, Dorothe Singer, Laura Starita, and Alexandra Norris. 2025. The Global Findex Database 2025: Connectivity and Financial Inclusion in the Digital Economy. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-2204-9.

Abstract

This data is from the first round of a unique, cross-country panel survey conducted in Sri Lanka by the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium (SLRC). The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) is the lead organisation of SLRC. SLRC partners who participated in the survey were: the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) in Sri Lanka, Feinstein International Center (FIC, Tufts University), the Sustainable Development Policy Institute(SDPI) in Pakistan, Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction, based at Wageningen University (WUR) in the Netherlands, the Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research (NCCR), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

This survey generated the first round of data on people's livelihoods, their access to and experience of basic services, and their views of governance actors. SLRC will attempt to re-interview the same respondents in 2015 to find out how the livelihoods and governance perceptions of people shift (or not) over time, and which factors may have contributed towards that change.

Geographic coverage

Sri Lanka: Jaffna, Mannar and Trincomalee districts Rural and urban

Analysis unit

Some questions are at the level of individuals in household (e.g. livelihood activities, education levels); other questions are at the household level (e.g. assets). A sizeable share of the questionnaire is devoted to perceptions based questions, which are at the individual (respondent) level.

Universe

Randomly selected households in purposely sampled sites (sampling procedure varied slightly by country).

Within a selected household, only one household members was interviewed about the household. Respondents were adults and we aimed to interview a fairly even share of men/ women. In some countries this was achieved, but in other countries the share of male respondents is substantially higher (e.g. Pakistan).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling strategy was designed to select households that are relevant to the main research questions and as well as being of national relevance, while also being able to produce statistically significant conclusions at the study and village level. To meet these objectives, purposive and random sampling were combined at different stages of the sampling strategy. The first stages of the sampling process involved purposive sampling, with random sampling only utilized in the last stage of the process. Sampling locations were selected purposely (including districts and locations within districts), and then randomly households were selected within these locations. A rigorous sample is geared towards meeting the objectives of the research. The samples are not representative for the case study countries and cannot be used to represent the case study countries as a whole, nor for the districts. The samples are representative at the village level, with the exception of Uganda.

Sampling locations (sub-regions or districts, sub-districts and villages) were purposively selected, using criteria, such as levels of service provision or levels of conflict, in order to locate the specific groups of interest and to select geographical locations that are relevant to the broader SLRC research areas and of policy relevance at the national level. For instance, locations experienced high/ low levels of conflict and locations with high/ low provision of services were selected and locations that accounted for all possible combinations of selection criteria were included. Survey locations with different characteristics were chose, so that we could explore the relevance of conflict affectedness, access to services and variations in geography and livelihoods on our outcome variables. Depending on the administrative structure of the country, this process involved selecting a succession of sampling locations (at increasingly lower administrative units).

The survey did not attempt to achieve representativeness at the country /or district level, but it aimed for representativeness at the sub-district /or village level through random sampling (Households were randomly selected within villages so that the results are representative and statistically significant at the village level and so that a varied sample was captured. Households were randomly selected using a number of different tools, depending on data availability, such as random selection from vote registers (Nepal), construction of household listings (DRC) and a quasi-random household process that involved walking in a random direction for a random number of minutes (Uganda).

The samples are statistically significant at the survey level and village level (in all countries) and at the district level in Sri Lanka and sub-region level in Uganda. The sample size was calculated with the aim to achieve statistical significance at the study and village level, and to accommodate the available budget, logistical limitations, and to account for possible attrition between 2012-2015. In a number of countries estimated population data had to be used, as recent population data were not available.

The minimum overall sample size required to achieve significance at the study level, given population and average household size across districts, was calculated using a basic sample size calculator at a 95% confidence level and confidence interval of 5. The sample size at the village level was again calculated at the using a 95% confidence level and confidence interval of 5. . Finally, the sample was increased by 20% to account for possible attrition between 2012 and 2015, so that the sample size in 2015 is likely to be still statistically significant.

The overall sample required to achieve the sampling objectives in selected districts in each country ranged from 1,259 to 3,175 households.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

One questionnaire per country that includes household level, individual level and respondent level perceptions based questions.

The general structure and content of the questionnaire is similar across all five countries, with about 80% of questions similar, but tailored to the country-specific process. Country-specific surveys were tailored on the basis of a generic survey instrument that was developed by ODI specifically for this survey.

The questionnaires are published in English.

Cleaning operations

CSPro was used for data entries in most countries.

Data editing took place at a number of stages throughout the processing, including: • Office editing and coding • During data entry • Structure checking and completeness • Extensive secondary editing conducted by ODI

Response rate

The required sample sizes were achieved in all countries. Response rates were extremely high, ranging from 99%-100%.

Sampling error estimates

No further estimations of sampling error was conducted beyond the sampling design stage.

Data appraisal

Done on an ad hoc basis for some countries, but not consistently across all surveys and domains.