Jurisdictional Unit, 2022-05-21. For use with WFDSS, IFTDSS, IRWIN, and InFORM.This is a feature service which provides Identify and Copy Feature capabilities. If fast-drawing at coarse zoom levels is a requirement, consider using the tile (map) service layer located at https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b2c5daad00742cd9f9b676c09d03d13.OverviewThe Jurisdictional Agencies dataset is developed as a national land management geospatial layer, focused on representing wildland fire jurisdictional responsibility, for interagency wildland fire applications, including WFDSS (Wildland Fire Decision Support System), IFTDSS (Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System), IRWIN (Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information), and InFORM (Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules). It is intended to provide federal wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries on a national scale. The agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIdentifier=null,JurisdictionalUnitAgency=null, JurisdictionalUnitKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).These data are used to automatically populate fields on the WFDSS Incident Information page.This data layer implements the NWCG Jurisdictional Unit Polygon Geospatial Data Layer Standard.Relevant NWCG Definitions and StandardsUnit2. A generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Unit, Protecting; LandownerUnit IdentifierThis data standard specifies the standard format and rules for Unit Identifier, a code used within the wildland fire community to uniquely identify a particular government organizational unit.Landowner Kind & CategoryThis data standard provides a two-tier classification (kind and category) of landownership. Attribute Fields JurisdictionalAgencyKind Describes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, and Other. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalAgencyCategoryDescribes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Standard Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available from the Unit ID standard, linked above.LandownerKindThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. There are three valid values: Federal, Private, or Other.LandownerCategoryThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State, Private.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. Be as specific as possible, identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated.SecondaryDataSourceIf the Data Source is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if Data Source is "PAD-US 2.1", then for a USDA Forest Service polygon, the Secondary Data Source would be "USDA FS Automated Lands Program (ALP)". For a BLM polygon in the same dataset, Secondary Source would be "Surface Management Agency (SMA)."SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.MapMethod:Controlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. Map method may help define data quality. MapMethod will be Mixed Method by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; OtherDateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using 24 hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature. GeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. This field may be renamed for each standard to fit the feature.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LocalNameLocalName for the polygon provided from PADUS or other source.LegendJurisdictionalAgencyJurisdictional Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.LegendLandownerAgencyLandowner Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.Data InputThis dataset is based on an aggregation of 4 spatial data sources: Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 2.1), data from Bureau of Indian Affairs regional offices, the BLM Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska, and Census Block-Group Geometry. NWCG Unit ID and Agency Kind/Category data are tabular and sourced from UnitIDActive.txt, in the WFMI Unit ID application (https://wfmi.nifc.gov/unit_id/Publish.html). Areas of with unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Agency Kind/Category are assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private" by use of the non-water polygons from the Census Block-Group geometry.PAD-US 2.1:This dataset is based in large part on the USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States - PAD-US 2.`. PAD-US is a compilation of authoritative protected areas data between agencies and organizations that ultimately results in a comprehensive and accurate inventory of protected areas for the United States to meet a variety of needs (e.g. conservation, recreation, public health, transportation, energy siting, ecological, or watershed assessments and planning). Extensive documentation on PAD-US processes and data sources is available.How these data were aggregated:Boundaries, and their descriptors, available in spatial databases (i.e. shapefiles or geodatabase feature classes) from land management agencies are the desired and primary data sources in PAD-US. If these authoritative sources are unavailable, or the agency recommends another source, data may be incorporated by other aggregators such as non-governmental organizations. Data sources are tracked for each record in the PAD-US geodatabase (see below).BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data are not available in PAD-US. As such, data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were substantially updated in 2022. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The

The landscape of the conterminous United States has changed dramatically over the last 200 years, with agricultural land use, urban expansion, forestry, and other anthropogenic activities altering land cover across vast swaths of the country. While land use and land cover (LULC) models have been developed to model potential future LULC change, few efforts have focused on recreating historical landscapes. Researchers at the US Geological Survey have used a wide range of historical data sources and a spatially explicit modeling framework to model spatially explicit historical LULC change in the conterminous United States from 1992 back to 1938. Annual LULC maps were produced at 250-m resolution, with 14 LULC classes. Assessment of model results showed good agreement with trends and spatial patterns in historical data sources such as the Census of Agriculture and historical housing density data, although comparison with historical data is complicated by definitional and methodological differences. The completion of this dataset allows researchers to assess historical LULC impacts on a range of ecological processes.

OverviewThe Jurisdictional Units dataset outlines wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries for federal, state, and local government entities on a national scale and is used within multiple wildland fire systems including the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS), the Interior Fuels and Post-Fire Reporting System (IFPRS), the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS), the Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules (InFORM), the Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information System (IRWIN), and the Wildland Computer-Aided Dispatch Enterprise System (WildCAD-E).In this dataset, agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager’s name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIID=null, JurisdictionalKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).AttributesField NameDefinitionGeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. Not populated for Census Block Groups.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available in the Unit ID standard.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons except for Census Blocks Group and for PAD-US polygons that did not have an associated name.LocalNameLocal name for the polygon provided from agency authoritative data, PAD-US, or other source.JurisdictionalKindDescribes the type of unit jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, Other, and Private. A value is not populated for Census Block Groups.JurisdictionalCategoryDescribes the type of unit jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, State, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), Private, and ANCSA. A value is not populated for Census Block Groups.LandownerKindThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. Legal values align with the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. A value is populated for all polygons.LandownerCategoryThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. Legal values align with the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. A value is populated for all polygons.LandownerDepartmentFederal department information that aligns with a unit’s landownerCategory information. Legal values include: Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy. A value is not populated for all polygons.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. An effort is made to be as specific as possible (i.e. identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated).SecondaryDataSourceIf the DataSource field is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if DataSource is "PAD-US 4.0", then for a TNC polygon, the SecondaryDataSource would be " TNC_PADUS2_0_SA2015_Public_gdb ".SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.MapMethodControlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. MapMethod will be Mixed Methods by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; Other.DateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using the 24-hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched to information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LegendJurisdictionalCategoryJurisdictionalCategory values grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table. Census Block Groups are classified as “No Unit”.LegendLandownerCategoryLandownerCategory values grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.Other Relevant NWCG Definition StandardsUnitA generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc.) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Protecting Unit; LandownerData SourcesThis dataset is an aggregation of multiple spatial data sources: • Authoritative land ownership records from BIA, BLM, NPS, USFS, USFWS, and the Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska• The Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 4.0)• Census Block-Group Geometry BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were reviewed/updated in 2024. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The spatial data coverage is a consolidation of the best available records/data received from each of the 12 BIA Regional Offices. The data are no better than the original sources from which they were derived. Care was taken when consolidating these files. However, BWFM cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the original digital data. The information contained in these data is dynamic and is continually changing. Updates to these data will be made whenever such data are received from a Regional Office. The BWFM gives no guarantee, expressed, written, or implied, regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data.Alaska:The state of Alaska and Alaska Fire Service (BLM) co-manage a process to aggregate authoritative land ownership, management, and jurisdictional boundary data, based on Master Title Plats. Data ProcessingTo compile this dataset, the authoritative land ownership records and the PAD-US data mentioned above were crosswalked into the Jurisdictional Unit Polygon schema and aggregated through a series of python scripts and FME models. Once aggregated, steps were taken to reduce overlaps within the data. All overlap areas larger than 300 acres were manually examined and removed with the assistance of fire management SMEs. Once overlaps were removed, Census Block Group geometry were crosswalked to the Jurisdictional Unit Polygon schema and appended in areas in which no jurisdictional boundaries were recorded within the authoritative land ownership records and the PAD-US data. Census Block Group geometries represent areas of unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Kind/Category and were assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private".Update FrequencyThe Authoritative land ownership records and PAD-US data used to compile this dataset are dynamic and are continually changing. Major updates to this dataset will be made once a year, and minor updates will be incorporated throughout the year as needed. New to the Latest Release (1/15/25)Now pulling from agency authoritative sources for BLM, NPS, USFS, and USFWS (instead of getting this data from PADUS).

Field Name Changes

The 2020 North American Land Cover 30-meter dataset was produced as part of the North American Land Change Monitoring System (NALCMS), a trilateral effort between Natural Resources Canada, the United States Geological Survey, and three Mexican organizations including the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía), National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of the Biodiversity (Comisión Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad), and the National Forestry Commission of Mexico (Comisión Nacional Forestal). The collaboration is facilitated by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an international organization created by the Canada, Mexico, and United States governments under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation to promote environmental collaboration between the three countries. The general objective of NALCMS is to devise, through collective effort, a harmonized multi-scale land cover monitoring approach which ensures high accuracy and consistency in monitoring land cover changes at the North American scale and which meets each country’s specific requirements. This 30-meter dataset of North American Land Cover reflects land cover information for 2020 from Mexico and Canada, 2019 over the conterminous United States and 2021 over Alaska. Each country developed its own classification method to identify Land Cover classes and then provided an input layer to produce a continental Land Cover map across North America. Canada, Mexico, and the United States developed their own 30-meter land cover products; see specific sections on data generation below. The main inputs for image classification were 30-meter Landsat 8 Collection 2 Level 1 data in the three countries (Canada, the United States and Mexico). Image selection processes and reduction to specific spectral bands varied among the countries due to study-site-specific requirements. While Canada selected most images from the year 2020 with a few from 2019 and 2021, the Conterminous United States employed mainly images from 2019, while Alaska land cover maps are mainly based on the use of images from 2021. The land cover map for Mexico was based on land cover change detection between 2015 and 2020 Mexico Landsat 8 mosaics. In order to generate a seamless and consistent land cover map of North America, national maps were generated for Canada by the CCRS; for Mexico by CONABIO, INEGI, and CONAFOR; and for the United States by the USGS. Each country chose their own approaches, ancillary data, and land cover mapping methodologies to create national datasets. This North America dataset was produced by combining the national land cover datasets. The integration of the three national products merged four Land Cover map sections, Alaska, Canada, the conterminous United States and Mexico.

In the United States, the federal government manages lands in significant parts of the country. These lands include 193 million acres managed by the US Forest Service in the nation's 154 National Forests and 20 National Grasslands, Bureau of Land Management lands that cover 247 million acres in Alaska and the Western United States, 150 million acres managed for wildlife conservation by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 84 million acres of National Parks and other lands managed by the National Park Service and over 30 million acres managed by the Department of Defense. The Bureau of Reclamation manages a much smaller land base than the other agencies included in this layer but plays a critical role in managing the country's water resources.The agencies included in this layer are:Bureau of Land ManagementBureau of ReclamationDepartment of DefenseNational Park ServiceUS Fish and Wildlife ServiceUS Forest ServiceDataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: United States lands managed by six federal agencies Coordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: 50 United States plus Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands. The layer also includes National Monuments and Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and the Caribbean Sea.Visible Scale: The data is visible at all scales but draws best at scales greater than 1:2,000,000Source: BLM, DoD, USFS, USFWS, NPS, PADUS 2.1Publication Date: Various - Esri compiled and published this layer in May 2022. See individual agency views for data vintage.There are six layer views available that were created from this service. Each layer uses a filter to extract an individual agency from the service. For more information about the layer views or how to use them in your own project, follow these links:USA Bureau of Land Management LandsUSA Bureau of Reclamation LandsUSA Department of Defense LandsUSA National Park Service LandsUSA Fish and Wildlife Service LandsUSA Forest Service LandsWhat can you do with this Layer?This layer is suitable for both visualization and analysis across the ArcGIS system. This layer can be combined with your data and other layers from the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World in ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Pro to create powerful web maps that can be used alone or in a story map or other application.Because this layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World it is easy to add to your map:In ArcGIS Online, you can add this layer to a map by selecting Add then Browse Living Atlas Layers. A window will open. Type "federal lands" in the search box and browse to the layer. Select the layer then click Add to Map.In ArcGIS Pro, open a map and select Add Data from the Map Tab. Select Data at the top of the drop down menu. The Add Data dialog box will open on the left side of the box, expand Portal if necessary, then select Living Atlas. Type "federal lands" in the search box, browse to the layer then click OK.In both ArcGIS Online and Pro you can change the layer's symbology and view its attribute table. You can filter the layer to show subsets of the data using the filter button in Online or a definition query in Pro.The data can be exported to a file geodatabase, a shapefile or other format and downloaded using the Export Data button on the top right of this webpage.This layer can be used as an analytic input in both Online and Pro through the Perform Analysis window Online or as an input to a geoprocessing tool, model, or Python script in Pro.The ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World provides an easy way to explore many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics like this one.

Goodwill-and-Other-Intagible-Assets Time Series for Simon Property Group Inc. Simon Property Group, Inc. (NYSE:SPG) is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust ("REIT"). Simon Property Group, L.P., or the Operating Partnership, is our majority-owned partnership subsidiary that owns all of our real estate properties and other assets. In this package, the terms Simon, we, our, or the Company refer to Simon Property Group, Inc., the Operating Partnership, and its subsidiaries. We own, develop and manage premier shopping, dining, entertainment and mixed-use destinations, which consist primarily of malls, Premium Outlets, The Mills, and International Properties. At December 31, 2024, we owned or had an interest in 229 properties comprising 183 million square feet in North America, Asia and Europe. We also owned an 88% interest in The Taubman Realty Group, or TRG, which owns 22 regional, super-regional, and outlet malls in the U.S. and Asia. Additionally, at December 31, 2024, we had a 22.4% ownership interest in Klepierre, a publicly traded, Paris-based real estate company, which owns shopping centers in 14 European countries.

These Kaggle datasets offer a comprehensive analysis of the US real estate market, leveraging data sourced from Redfin via an unofficial API. It contains weekly snapshots stored in CSV files, reflecting the dynamic nature of property listings, prices, and market trends across various states and cities, except for Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota, and with specific data generation for Texas cities. Notably, the dataset includes a prepared version, USA_clean_unique, which has undergone initial cleaning steps as outlined in the thesis. These datasets were part of my thesis; other two countries were France and UK.

These steps include: - Removal of irrelevant features for statistical analysis. - Renaming variables for consistency across international datasets. - Adjustment of variable value ranges for a more refined analysis.

Unique aspects such as Redfin’s “hot” label algorithm, property search status, and detailed categorizations of property types (e.g., single-family residences, condominiums/co-ops, multi-family homes, townhouses) provide deep insights into the market. Additionally, external factors like interest rates, stock market volatility, unemployment rates, and crime rates have been integrated to enrich the dataset and offer a multifaceted view of the real estate market's drivers.

The USA_clean_unique dataset represents a key step before data normalization/trimming, containing variables both in their raw form and categorized based on predefined criteria, such as property size, year of construction, and number of bathrooms/bedrooms. This structured approach aims to capture the non-linear relationships between various features and property prices, enhancing the dataset's utility for predictive modeling and market analysis.

See columns from USA_clean_unique.csv and my Thesis (Table 2.8) for exact column descriptions.

Table 2.4 and Section 2.2.3, which I refer to in the column descriptions, can be found in my thesis; see University Library. Click on Online Access->Hlavni prace.

If you want to continue generating datasets yourself, see my Github Repository for code inspiration.

Let me know if you want to see how I got from raw data to USA_clean_unique.csv. Multiple steps include cleaning in Tableau Prep and R, downloading and merging external variables to the dataset, removing duplicates, and renaming columns for consistency.

This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the Northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the Southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe’s Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe’s Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists, funded by the Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program, developed a dataset of 2006 and 2011 land use and land cover (LULC) information for selected 100-km2 sample blocks within 29 EPA Level 3 ecoregions across the conterminous United States. The data was collected for validation of new and existing national scale LULC datasets developed from remotely sensed data sources. The data can also be used with the previously published Land Cover Trends Dataset: 1973-2000 (http:// http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/844/), to assess land-use/land-cover change in selected ecoregions over a 37-year study period. LULC data for 2006 and 2011 was manually delineated using the same sample block classification procedures as the previous Land Cover Trends project. The methodology is based on a statistical sampling approach, manual classification of land use and land cover, and post-classification comparisons of land cover across different dates. Landsat Thematic Mapper, and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus imagery was interpreted using a modified Anderson Level I classification scheme. Landsat data was acquired from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) collection of images. For the 2006 and 2011 update, ecoregion specific alterations in the sampling density were made to expedite the completion of manual block interpretations. The data collection process started with the 2000 date from the previous assessment and any needed corrections were made before interpreting the next two dates of 2006 and 2011 imagery. The 2000 land cover was copied and any changes seen in the 2006 Landsat images were digitized into a new 2006 land cover image. Similarly, the 2011 land cover image was created after completing the 2006 delineation. Results from analysis of these data include ecoregion based statistical estimates of the amount of LULC change per time period, ranking of the most common types of conversions, rates of change, and percent composition. Overall estimated amount of change per ecoregion from 2001 to 2011 ranged from a low of 370 km2 in the Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion to a high of 78,782 km2 in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion. The Southeastern Plains Ecoregion continues to encompass the most intense forest harvesting and regrowth in the country. Forest harvesting and regrowth rates in the southeastern U.S. and Pacific Northwest continued at late 20th century levels. The land use and land cover data collected by this study is ideally suited for training, validation, and regional assessments of land use and land cover change in the U.S. because it is collected using manual interpretation techniques of Landsat data aided by high resolution photography. The 2001-2011 Land Cover Trends Dataset is provided in an Albers Conical Equal Area projection using the NAD 1983 datum. The sample blocks have a 30-meter resolution and file names follow a specific naming convention that includes the number of the ecoregion containing the block, the block number, and the Landsat image date. The data files are organized by ecoregion, and are available in the ERDAS Imagine (.img) format. U.S. Geological Survey scientists, funded by the Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program, developed a dataset of 2006 and 2011 land use and land cover (LULC) information for selected 100-km2 sample blocks within 29 EPA Level 3 ecoregions across the conterminous United States. The data was collected for validation of new and existing national scale LULC datasets developed from remotely sensed data sources. The data can also be used with the previously published Land Cover Trends Dataset: 1973-2000 (http:// http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/844/), to assess land-use/land-cover change in selected ecoregions over a 37-year study period. LULC data for 2006 and 2011 was manually delineated using the same sample block classification procedures as the previous Land Cover Trends project. The methodology is based on a statistical sampling approach, manual classification of land use and land cover, and post-classification comparisons of land cover across different dates. Landsat Thematic Mapper, and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus imagery was interpreted using a modified Anderson Level I classification scheme. Landsat data was acquired from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) collection of images. For the 2006 and 2011 update, ecoregion specific alterations in the sampling density were made to expedite the completion of manual block interpretations. The data collection process started with the 2000 date from the previous assessment and any needed corrections were made before interpreting the next two dates of 2006 and 2011 imagery. The 2000 land cover was copied and any changes seen in the 2006 Landsat images were digitized into a new 2006 land cover image. Similarly, the 2011 land cover image was created after completing the 2006 delineation. Results from analysis of these data include ecoregion based statistical estimates of the amount of LULC change per time period, ranking of the most common types of conversions, rates of change, and percent composition. Overall estimated amount of change per ecoregion from 2001 to 2011 ranged from a low of 370 square km in the Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion to a high of 78,782 square km in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion. The Southeastern Plains Ecoregion continues to encompass the most intense forest harvesting and regrowth in the country. Forest harvesting and regrowth rates in the southeastern U.S. and Pacific Northwest continued at late 20th century levels. The land use and land cover data collected by this study is ideally suited for training, validation, and regional assessments of land use and land cover change in the U.S. because it’s collected using manual interpretation techniques of Landsat data aided by high resolution photography. The 2001-2011 Land Cover Trends Dataset is provided in an Albers Conical Equal Area projection using the NAD 1983 datum. The sample blocks have a 30-meter resolution and file names follow a specific naming convention that includes the number of the ecoregion containing the block, the block number, and the Landsat image date. The data files are organized by ecoregion, and are available in the ERDAS Imagine (.img) format.

Real estate markets are of great importance for both local and international investors. Sydney and Melbourne are two dynamic markets where economic and social factors have significant impacts on property prices. Below is a detailed description of each feature:

1. Date: The date when the property was sold. This feature helps in understanding the temporal trends in property prices.
2. Price:The sale price of the property in USD. This is the target variable we aim to predict.
3. Bedrooms:The number of bedrooms in the property. Generally, properties with more bedrooms tend to have higher prices.
4. Bathrooms: The number of bathrooms in the property. Similar to bedrooms, more bathrooms can increase a property’s value.
5. Sqft Living: The size of the living area in square feet. Larger living areas are typically associated with higher property values.
6. Sqft Lot:The size of the lot in square feet. Larger lots may increase a property’s desirability and value.
7. Floors: The number of floors in the property. Properties with multiple floors may offer more living space and appeal.
8. Waterfront: A binary indicator (1 if the property has a waterfront view, 0 other- wise). Properties with waterfront views are often valued higher.
9. View: An index from 0 to 4 indicating the quality of the property’s view. Better views are likely to enhance a property’s value.
10. Condition: An index from 1 to 5 rating the condition of the property. Properties in better condition are typically worth more.
11. Sqft Above: The square footage of the property above the basement. This can help isolate the value contribution of above-ground space.
12. Sqft Basement: The square footage of the basement. Basements may add value depending on their usability.
13. Yr Built: The year the property was built. Older properties may have historical value, while newer ones may offer modern amenities.
14. Yr Renovated: The year the property was last renovated. Recent renovations can increase a property’s appeal and value.
15. Street: The street address of the property. This feature can be used to analyze location-specific price trends.
16. City: The city where the property is located. Different cities have distinct market dynamics.
17. Statezip: The state and zip code of the property. This feature provides regional context for the property.
18. Country: The country where the property is located. While this dataset focuses on properties in Australia, this feature is included for completeness.

If you like this dataset, please contribute by upvoting

This GIS Dataset is prepared strictly for illustrative and reference purposes only and should not be used, and is not intended for legal, survey, engineering or navigation purposes.No warranty is made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the use of the data for purposes not intended by the BIA. This GIS Dataset may contain errors. There is no impact on the legal status of the land areas depicted herein and no impact on land ownership. No legal inference can or should be made from the information in this GIS Dataset. The GIS Dataset is to be used solely for illustrative, reference and statistical purposes and may be used for government to government Tribal consultation. Reservation boundary data is limited in authority to those areas where there has been settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of the boundary. Absent settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of a reservation boundary, the BIA recommends consultation with the appropriate Tribe and then the BIA to obtain interpretations of the reservation boundary.The land areas and their representations are compilations defined by the official land title records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) which include treaties, statutes, Acts of Congress, agreements, executive orders, proclamations, deeds and other land title documents. The trust, restricted, and mixed ownership land area shown here, are suitable only for general spatial reference and do not represent the federal government’s position on the jurisdictional status of Indian country. Ownership and jurisdictional status is subject to change and must be verified with plat books, patents, and deeds in the appropriate federal and state offices.Included in this dataset are the exterior extent of off reservation trust, restricted fee tracts and mixed tracts of land including Public Domain allotments, Dependent Indian Communities, Homesteads and government administered lands and those set aside for schools and dormitories. There are also land areas where there is more than one tribe having an interest in or authority over a tract of land but this information is not specified in the AIAN-LAR dataset. The dataset includes both surface and subsurface tracts of land (tribal and individually held) “off reservation” tracts and not simply off reservation “allotments” as land has in many cases been subsequently acquired in trust.These data are public information and may be used by various organizations, agencies, units of government (i.e., Federal, state, county, and city), and other entities according to the restrictions on appropriate use. It is strongly recommended that these data be acquired directly from the BIA and not indirectly through some other source, which may have altered or integrated the data for another purpose for which they may not have been intended. Integrating land areas into another dataset and attempting to resolve boundary differences between other entities may produce inaccurate results. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. Users are cautioned that digital enlargement of these data to scales greater than those at which they were originally mapped can cause misinterpretation.The BIA AIAN-LAR dataset’s spatial accuracy and attribute information are continuously being updated, improved and is used as the single authoritative land area boundary data for the BIA mission. These data are available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Division of Land Titles and Records, Branch of Geospatial Support.These data have been made publicly available from an authoritative source other than this Atlas and data should be obtained directly from that source for any re-use. See the original metadata from the authoritative source for more information about these data and use limitations. The authoritative source of these data can be found at the following location: https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.2021.html#list-tab-790442341The BIA Indian Lands dataset’s spatial accuracy and attribute information are continuously being updated, improved and is used as the single authoritative land area boundary data for the BIA mission. This data are available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Division of Land Titles and Records, Branch of Geospatial Support. Please feel free to contact us at 1-877-293-9494 geospatial@bia.gov

This study examines the validity of the assumption that international large-scale land acquisition (LSLA) is motivated by the desire to secure control over water resources, which is commonly referred to as ‘water grabbing’. This assumption was repeatedly expressed in recent years, ascribing the said motivation to the Gulf States in particular. However, it must be considered of hypothetical nature, as the few global studies conducted so far focused primarily on the effects of LSLA on host countries or on trade in virtual water. In this study, we analyse the effects of 475 intended or concluded land deals recorded in the Land Matrix database on the water balance in both host and investor countries. We also examine how these effects relate to water stress and how they contribute to global trade in virtual water. The analysis shows that implementation of the LSLAs in our sample would result in global water savings based on virtual water trade. At the level of individual LSLA host countries, however, water use intensity would increase, particularly in 15 sub-Saharan states. From an investor country perspective, the analysis reveals that countries often suspected of using LSLA to relieve pressure on their domestic water resources—such as China, India, and all Gulf States except Saudi Arabia—invest in agricultural activities abroad that are less water-intensive compared to their average domestic crop production. Conversely, large investor countries such as the United States, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Japan are disproportionately externalizing crop water consumption through their international land investments. Statistical analyses also show that host countries with abundant water resources are not per se favoured targets of LSLA. Indeed, further analysis reveals that land investments originating in water-stressed countries have only a weak tendency to target areas with a smaller water risk.

Some say climate change is the biggest threat of our age while others say it’s a myth based on dodgy science. We are turning some of the data over to you so you can form your own view.

Even more than with other data sets that Kaggle has featured, there’s a huge amount of data cleaning and preparation that goes into putting together a long-time study of climate trends. Early data was collected by technicians using mercury thermometers, where any variation in the visit time impacted measurements. In the 1940s, the construction of airports caused many weather stations to be moved. In the 1980s, there was a move to electronic thermometers that are said to have a cooling bias.

Given this complexity, there are a range of organizations that collate climate trends data. The three most cited land and ocean temperature data sets are NOAA’s MLOST, NASA’s GISTEMP and the UK’s HadCrut.

We have repackaged the data from a newer compilation put together by the Berkeley Earth, which is affiliated with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study combines 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 pre-existing archives. It is nicely packaged and allows for slicing into interesting subsets (for example by country). They publish the source data and the code for the transformations they applied. They also use methods that allow weather observations from shorter time series to be included, meaning fewer observations need to be thrown away.

In this dataset, we have include several files:

Global Land and Ocean-and-Land Temperatures (GlobalTemperatures.csv):

• Date: starts in 1750 for average land temperature and 1850 for max and min land temperatures and global ocean and land temperatures
• LandAverageTemperature: global average land temperature in celsius
• LandAverageTemperatureUncertainty: the 95% confidence interval around the average
• LandMaxTemperature: global average maximum land temperature in celsius
• LandMaxTemperatureUncertainty: the 95% confidence interval around the maximum land temperature
• LandMinTemperature: global average minimum land temperature in celsius
• LandMinTemperatureUncertainty: the 95% confidence interval around the minimum land temperature
• LandAndOceanAverageTemperature: global average land and ocean temperature in celsius
• LandAndOceanAverageTemperatureUncertainty: the 95% confidence interval around the global average land and ocean temperature

Other files include:

• Global Average Land Temperature by Country (GlobalLandTemperaturesByCountry.csv)
• Global Average Land Temperature by State (GlobalLandTemperaturesByState.csv)
• Global Land Temperatures By Major City (GlobalLandTemperaturesByMajorCity.csv)
• Global Land Temperatures By City (GlobalLandTemperaturesByCity.csv)

The raw data comes from the Berkeley Earth data page.

Other-Long-Term-Liabilities Time Series for Simon Property Group Inc. Simon Property Group, Inc. (NYSE:SPG) is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust ("REIT"). Simon Property Group, L.P., or the Operating Partnership, is our majority-owned partnership subsidiary that owns all of our real estate properties and other assets. In this package, the terms Simon, we, our, or the Company refer to Simon Property Group, Inc., the Operating Partnership, and its subsidiaries. We own, develop and manage premier shopping, dining, entertainment and mixed-use destinations, which consist primarily of malls, Premium Outlets, The Mills, and International Properties. At December 31, 2024, we owned or had an interest in 229 properties comprising 183 million square feet in North America, Asia and Europe. We also owned an 88% interest in The Taubman Realty Group, or TRG, which owns 22 regional, super-regional, and outlet malls in the U.S. and Asia. Additionally, at December 31, 2024, we had a 22.4% ownership interest in Klepierre, a publicly traded, Paris-based real estate company, which owns shopping centers in 14 European countries.

This TNC Lands spatial dataset represents the lands and waters in which The Nature Conservancy (TNC) currently has, or historically had, an interest, legal or otherwise in Massachusetts. The system of record for TNC Lands is the Legal Records Management (LRM) system, which is TNC’s database for all TNC land transactions.TNC properties should not be considered open to the public unless specifically designated as being so. TNC may change the access status at any time at its sole discretion. It's recommended to visit preserve-specific websites or contact the organization operating the preserve before any planned visit for the latest conditions, notices, and closures. TNC prohibits redistribution or display of the data in maps or online in any way that misleadingly implies such lands are universally open to the public.The types of current land interests represented in the TNC Lands data include: Fields and Attributes included in the public dataset:Field NameField DefinitionAttributesAttribute Definitions Public NameThe name of the tract that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Business Unit (BU) uses for public audiences.Public name of tract if applicableN/A TNC Primary InterestThe primary interest held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) on the tractFee OwnershipProperties where TNC currently holds fee-title or exclusive rights and control over real estate. Fee Ownership can include TNC Nature Preserves, managed areas, and properties that are held for future transfer. Conservation EasementProperties on which TNC holds a conservation easement, which is a legally binding agreement restricting the use of real property for conservation purposes (e.g., no development). The easement may additionally provide the holder (TNC) with affirmative rights, such as the rights to monitor species or to manage the land. It may run forever or for an expressed term of years. Deed RestrictionProperties where TNC holds a deed restriction, which is a provision placed in a deed restricting or limiting the use of the property in some manner (e.g., if a property goes up for sale, TNC gets the first option). TransferProperties where TNC historically had a legal interest (fee or easement), then subsequently transferred the interest to a conservation partner. AssistProperties where TNC assisted another agency/entity in protecting. Management Lease or AgreementAn agreement between two parties whereby one party allows the other to use their property for a certain period of time in exchange for a periodic fee. Grazing Lease or PermitA grazing lease or permit held by The Nature Conservancy Right of WayAn access easement or agreement held by The Nature Conservancy. OtherAnother real estate interest or legal agreement held by The Nature Conservancy Fee OwnerThe name of the organization serving as fee owner of the tract, or "Private Land Owner" if the owner is a private party. If The Nature Conservancy (TNC) primary interest is a "Transfer" or "Assist", then this is the fee owner at the time of the transaction.Fee Owner NameN/A Fee Org TypeThe type of organization(s) that hold(s) fee ownership. Chosen from a list of accepted values.Organization Types for Fee OwnershipFED:Federal, TRIB:American Indian Lands, STAT:State,DIST:Regional Agency Special District, LOC:Local Government, NGO:Non-Governmental Organization, PVT:Private, JNT:Joint, UNK:Unknown, TERR:Territorial, DESG:Designation Other Interest HolderThe name of the organization(s) that hold(s) a different interest in the tract, besides fee ownership or TNC Primary Interest. This may include TNC if the Other Interest is held or co-held by TNC. Multiple interest holders should be separated by a semicolon (;).Other Interest Holder NameN/A Other Interest Org TypeThe type of organization(s) that hold(s) a different interest in the tract, besides fee ownership. This may include TNC if the Other Interest is held or co-held by TNC. Chosen from a list of accepted values.Organization Types for interest holders:FED:Federal, TRIB:American Indian Lands, STAT:State,DIST:Regional Agency Special District, LOC:Local Government, NGO:Non-Governmental Organization, PVT:Private, JNT:Joint, UNK:Unknown, TERR:Territorial, DESG:Designation Other Interest TypeThe other interest type held on the tract. Chosen from a list of accepted values.​Access Right of Way; Conservation Easement; Co-held Conservation Easement; Deed Restriction; Co-held Deed Restriction; Fee Ownership; Co-held Fee Ownership; Grazing Lease or Permit; Life Estate; Management Lease or Agreement; Timber Lease or Agreement; OtherN/A Preserve NameThe name of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) preserve that the tract is a part of, this may be the same name as the as the "Public Name" for the tract.Preserve Name if applicableN/APublic AccessThe level of public access allowed on the tract.Open AccessAccess is encouraged on the tract, trails are maintained, signage is abundant, and parking is available. The tract may include regular hours of availability.Open with Limited AccessThere are no special requirements for public access to the tract, the tract may include regular hours of availability with limited amenities.Restricted AccessThe tract requires a special permit from the owner for access, a registration permit on public land, or has highly variable times or conditions to use.Closed AccessNo public access is allowed on the tract.UnknownAccess information for the tract is not currently available.Gap CategoryThe Gap Analysis Project (GAP) code for the tract. Gap Analysis is the science of determining how well we are protecting common plants and animals. Developing the data and tools to support that science is the mission of the Gap Analysis Project (GAP) at the US Geological Survey. See their website for more information, linked in the field name.1 - Permanent Protection for BiodiversityPermanent Protection for Biodiversity2 - Permanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural StatePermanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural State3 - Permanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural coverPermanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural cover39 - Permanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass coverPermanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass cover4 - UnsecuredUnsecured (temporary easements lands and/or municipal lands that are already developed (schools, golf course, soccer fields, ball fields)9 - UnknownUnknownProtected AcresThe planar area of the tract polygon in acres, calculated by the TNC Lands geographic information system (GIS).Total geodesic area of polygon in acresProjection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereOriginal Protection DateThe original protection date for the tract, from the Land Resource Management (LRM) system record.Original protection dateN/AStateThe state within the United States of America or the Canadian province where the tract is located.Chosen from a list of state names.N/ACountryThe name of the country where the tract is located.Chosen from a list of countries.N/ADivisionThe name of the TNC North America Region Division where the tract is located. Chosen from a list of TNC North America DivisionsN/A

This TNC Lands spatial dataset represents the lands and waters in which The Nature Conservancy (TNC) currently has, or historically had, an interest, legal or otherwise in Minnesota, North Dakota, & South Dakota. The system of record for TNC Lands is the Legal Records Management (LRM) system, which is TNC’s database for all TNC land transactions.TNC properties should not be considered open to the public unless specifically designated as being so. TNC may change the access status at any time at its sole discretion. It's recommended to visit preserve-specific websites or contact the organization operating the preserve before any planned visit for the latest conditions, notices, and closures. TNC prohibits redistribution or display of the data in maps or online in any way that misleadingly implies such lands are universally open to the public.The types of current land interests represented in the TNC Lands data include: Fields and Attributes included in the public dataset:Field NameField DefinitionAttributesAttribute Definitions Public NameThe name of the tract that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Business Unit (BU) uses for public audiences.Public name of tract if applicableN/A TNC Primary InterestThe primary interest held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) on the tractFee OwnershipProperties where TNC currently holds fee-title or exclusive rights and control over real estate. Fee Ownership can include TNC Nature Preserves, managed areas, and properties that are held for future transfer. Conservation EasementProperties on which TNC holds a conservation easement, which is a legally binding agreement restricting the use of real property for conservation purposes (e.g., no development). The easement may additionally provide the holder (TNC) with affirmative rights, such as the rights to monitor species or to manage the land. It may run forever or for an expressed term of years. Deed RestrictionProperties where TNC holds a deed restriction, which is a provision placed in a deed restricting or limiting the use of the property in some manner (e.g., if a property goes up for sale, TNC gets the first option). TransferProperties where TNC historically had a legal interest (fee or easement), then subsequently transferred the interest to a conservation partner. AssistProperties where TNC assisted another agency/entity in protecting. Management Lease or AgreementAn agreement between two parties whereby one party allows the other to use their property for a certain period of time in exchange for a periodic fee. Grazing Lease or PermitA grazing lease or permit held by The Nature Conservancy Right of WayAn access easement or agreement held by The Nature Conservancy. OtherAnother real estate interest or legal agreement held by The Nature Conservancy Fee OwnerThe name of the organization serving as fee owner of the tract, or "Private Land Owner" if the owner is a private party. If The Nature Conservancy (TNC) primary interest is a "Transfer" or "Assist", then this is the fee owner at the time of the transaction.Fee Owner NameN/A Fee Org TypeThe type of organization(s) that hold(s) fee ownership. Chosen from a list of accepted values.Organization Types for Fee OwnershipFED:Federal, TRIB:American Indian Lands, STAT:State,DIST:Regional Agency Special District, LOC:Local Government, NGO:Non-Governmental Organization, PVT:Private, JNT:Joint, UNK:Unknown, TERR:Territorial, DESG:Designation Other Interest HolderThe name of the organization(s) that hold(s) a different interest in the tract, besides fee ownership or TNC Primary Interest. This may include TNC if the Other Interest is held or co-held by TNC. Multiple interest holders should be separated by a semicolon (;).Other Interest Holder NameN/A Other Interest Org TypeThe type of organization(s) that hold(s) a different interest in the tract, besides fee ownership. This may include TNC if the Other Interest is held or co-held by TNC. Chosen from a list of accepted values.Organization Types for interest holders:FED:Federal, TRIB:American Indian Lands, STAT:State,DIST:Regional Agency Special District, LOC:Local Government, NGO:Non-Governmental Organization, PVT:Private, JNT:Joint, UNK:Unknown, TERR:Territorial, DESG:Designation Other Interest TypeThe other interest type held on the tract. Chosen from a list of accepted values.​Access Right of Way; Conservation Easement; Co-held Conservation Easement; Deed Restriction; Co-held Deed Restriction; Fee Ownership; Co-held Fee Ownership; Grazing Lease or Permit; Life Estate; Management Lease or Agreement; Timber Lease or Agreement; OtherN/A Preserve NameThe name of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) preserve that the tract is a part of, this may be the same name as the as the "Public Name" for the tract.Preserve Name if applicableN/APublic AccessThe level of public access allowed on the tract.Open AccessAccess is encouraged on the tract, trails are maintained, signage is abundant, and parking is available. The tract may include regular hours of availability.Open with Limited AccessThere are no special requirements for public access to the tract, the tract may include regular hours of availability with limited amenities.Restricted AccessThe tract requires a special permit from the owner for access, a registration permit on public land, or has highly variable times or conditions to use.Closed AccessNo public access is allowed on the tract.UnknownAccess information for the tract is not currently available.Gap CategoryThe Gap Analysis Project (GAP) code for the tract. Gap Analysis is the science of determining how well we are protecting common plants and animals. Developing the data and tools to support that science is the mission of the Gap Analysis Project (GAP) at the US Geological Survey. See their website for more information, linked in the field name.1 - Permanent Protection for BiodiversityPermanent Protection for Biodiversity2 - Permanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural StatePermanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural State3 - Permanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural coverPermanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural cover39 - Permanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass coverPermanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass cover4 - UnsecuredUnsecured (temporary easements lands and/or municipal lands that are already developed (schools, golf course, soccer fields, ball fields)9 - UnknownUnknownProtected AcresThe planar area of the tract polygon in acres, calculated by the TNC Lands geographic information system (GIS).Total geodesic area of polygon in acresProjection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereOriginal Protection DateThe original protection date for the tract, from the Land Resource Management (LRM) system record.Original protection dateN/AStateThe state within the United States of America or the Canadian province where the tract is located.Chosen from a list of state names.N/ACountryThe name of the country where the tract is located.Chosen from a list of countries.N/ADivisionThe name of the TNC North America Region Division where the tract is located. Chosen from a list of TNC North America DivisionsN/A

This TNC Lands spatial dataset represents the lands and waters in which The Nature Conservancy (TNC) currently has, or historically had, an interest, legal or otherwise in California. The system of record for TNC Lands is the Legal Records Management (LRM) system, which is TNC’s database for all TNC land transactions. TNC properties should not be considered open to the public unless specifically designated as being so. TNC may change the access status at any time at its sole discretion. It's recommended to visit preserve-specific websites or contact the organization operating the preserve before any planned visit for the latest conditions, notices, and closures. TNC prohibits redistribution or display of the data in maps or online in any way that misleadingly implies such lands are universally open to the public.The types of current land interests represented in the TNC Lands data may include: Fields and Attributes included in the public dataset:Field NameField DefinitionAttributesAttribute Definitions Public NameThe name of the tract that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Business Unit (BU) uses for public audiences.Public name of tract if applicableN/A TNC Primary InterestThe primary interest held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) on the tractFee OwnershipProperties where TNC currently holds fee-title or exclusive rights and control over real estate. Fee Ownership can include TNC Nature Preserves, managed areas, and properties that are held for future transfer. Conservation EasementProperties on which TNC holds a conservation easement, which is a legally binding agreement restricting the use of real property for conservation purposes (e.g., no development). The easement may additionally provide the holder (TNC) with affirmative rights, such as the rights to monitor species or to manage the land. It may run forever or for an expressed term of years. Deed RestrictionProperties where TNC holds a deed restriction, which is a provision placed in a deed restricting or limiting the use of the property in some manner (e.g., if a property goes up for sale, TNC gets the first option). TransferProperties where TNC historically had a legal interest (fee or easement), then subsequently transferred the interest to a conservation partner. AssistProperties where TNC assisted another agency/entity in protecting. Management Lease or AgreementAn agreement between two parties whereby one party allows the other to use their property for a certain period of time in exchange for a periodic fee. Grazing Lease or PermitA grazing lease or permit held by The Nature Conservancy Right of WayAn access easement or agreement held by The Nature Conservancy. OtherAnother real estate interest or legal agreement held by The Nature Conservancy Fee OwnerThe name of the organization serving as fee owner of the tract, or "Private Land Owner" if the owner is a private party. If The Nature Conservancy (TNC) primary interest is a "Transfer" or "Assist", then this is the fee owner at the time of the transaction.Fee Owner NameN/A Fee Org TypeThe type of organization(s) that hold(s) fee ownership. Chosen from a list of accepted values.Organization Types for Fee OwnershipFED:Federal, TRIB:American Indian Lands, STAT:State,DIST:Regional Agency Special District, LOC:Local Government, NGO:Non-Governmental Organization, PVT:Private, JNT:Joint, UNK:Unknown, TERR:Territorial, DESG:Designation Other Interest HolderThe name of the organization(s) that hold(s) a different interest in the tract, besides fee ownership or TNC Primary Interest. This may include TNC if the Other Interest is held or co-held by TNC. Multiple interest holders should be separated by a semicolon (;).Other Interest Holder NameN/A Other Interest Org TypeThe type of organization(s) that hold(s) a different interest in the tract, besides fee ownership. This may include TNC if the Other Interest is held or co-held by TNC. Chosen from a list of accepted values.Organization Types for interest holders:FED:Federal, TRIB:American Indian Lands, STAT:State,DIST:Regional Agency Special District, LOC:Local Government, NGO:Non-Governmental Organization, PVT:Private, JNT:Joint, UNK:Unknown, TERR:Territorial, DESG:Designation Other Interest TypeThe other interest type held on the tract. Chosen from a list of accepted values.​Access Right of Way; Conservation Easement; Co-held Conservation Easement; Deed Restriction; Co-held Deed Restriction; Fee Ownership; Co-held Fee Ownership; Grazing Lease or Permit; Life Estate; Management Lease or Agreement; Timber Lease or Agreement; OtherN/A Preserve NameThe name of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) preserve that the tract is a part of, this may be the same name as the as the "Public Name" for the tract.Preserve Name if applicableN/A Public AccessThe level of public access allowed on the tract.Open AccessAccess is encouraged on the tract, trails are maintained, signage is abundant, and parking is available. The tract may include regular hours of availability. Open with Limited AccessThere are no special requirements for public access to the tract, the tract may include regular hours of availability with limited amenities. Restricted AccessThe tract requires a special permit from the owner for access, a registration permit on public land, or has highly variable times or conditions to use. Closed AccessNo public access is allowed on the tract. UnknownAccess information for the tract is not currently available. Gap CategoryThe Gap Analysis Project (GAP) code for the tract. Gap Analysis is the science of determining how well we are protecting common plants and animals. Developing the data and tools to support that science is the mission of the Gap Analysis Project (GAP) at the US Geological Survey. See their website for more information, linked in the field name.1 - Permanent Protection for BiodiversityPermanent Protection for Biodiversity 2 - Permanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural StatePermanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural State 3 - Permanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural coverPermanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural cover 39 - Permanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass coverPermanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass cover 4 - UnsecuredUnsecured (temporary easements lands and/or municipal lands that are already developed (schools, golf course, soccer fields, ball fields) 9 - UnknownUnknown Protected AcresThe planar area of the tract polygon in acres, calculated by the TNC Lands geographic information system (GIS).Total geodesic area of polygon in acresProjection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Original Protection DateThe original protection date for the tract, from the Land Resource Management (LRM) system record.Original protection dateN/A StateThe state within the United States of America or the Canadian province where the tract is located.Chosen from a list of state names.N/A CountryThe name of the country where the tract is located.Chosen from a list of countries.N/A DivisionThe name of the TNC North America Region Division where the tract is located. Chosen from a list of TNC North America DivisionsN/A

The World Bank's data for 2021 on total land area by country provides detailed information on the size of land in square kilometers for various countries worldwide. Here are some key highlights from the dataset:

Russia is the largest country by land area, with approximately 16.38 million square kilometers. Canada follows with around 9.98 million square kilometers. China has a land area of about 9.42 million square kilometers, making it the third largest. The United States (excluding territories) covers around 9.14 million square kilometers. Smaller countries and regions include:

Vatican City, with an area of about 0.44 square kilometers. Monaco, with 2 square kilometers

THIS DATA WAS LAST UPDATED IN 2024 and it is owned by https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2?end=2021&start=2021&view=map

We analyze past and anticipated future trends in crop yields, per capita consumption, and population to estimate agricultural land requirements globally by 2050 and 2100. Assuming “business as usual,†high-income countries are expected to show little or no net growth in cropland by the end of the century whereas land requirements will nearly double in low-income countries. We consider two possible strategies that might reduce cropland expansion: decreasing per capita caloric consumption in the high-income countries and accelerating the economic development of the low-income countries. Our analysis suggests that accelerating economic development in low-income countries would have a greater impact on reducing global cropland expansion than lowering consumption in high-income countries. Economic development would reduce population growth and improve crop yields to an extent that could more than offset increased per capita consumption in these countries. Combining the two strate..., , All of the data files are analyzed using R., , # Reversing the great degradation of nature through economic development

This README file was generated on 2025-03-07 by Erik Nelson.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Title of Dataset: Reversing the Great Degradation of Nature through Economic Development.
2. Author Information Name: Erik Nelson Institution: Bowdoin College Address: Brunswick, ME USA Email: enelson2@bowdoin.edu

Some datasets in this project give country-level statistics on land use, agricultural production, crop yield, kilocalorie consumption, agricultural trade volumes, and population for the years 1961 through 2018.

Other datasets in this project give statistics on land use, agricultural production, crop yield, kilocalorie consumption, and population in the United States from the mid-19th century through 2018.

Other datasets in this project give future projections of country-level crop yields, kilocalorie consumption, kilocalorie trade, population, and gross domestic product p...

Einführung des Euro in EU-Mitgliedsstaaten mit bisher nationaler Währung. Themen: Kontakt mit und Nutzung von Euro-Banknoten und -Münzen; Nutzung im eigenen Land, im Ausland oder beides; Wissenstest über den Euro: identisches Aussehen von Euro-Banknoten und -Münzen in jedem Land, Anzahl der bereits den Euro nutzenden Länder; Bereitsein des eigenes Landes für die Einführung des Euro; Jahr der Einführung im eigenen Land; Selbsteinschätzung der Informiertheit über den Euro; bevorzugter Zeitpunkt für Informationen zur Euro-Einführung im eigenen Land; Vertrauen in Informationen zur Euro-Einführung von: nationaler Regierung oder Behörden, Steuerbehörden, nationaler Zentralbank, europäischen Institutionen, Geschäftsbanken, Journalisten, Gewerkschaften oder Berufsorganisationen, Verbraucherschutzorganisationen; bevorzugte Orte für Informationen über den Euro und die Umstellung; wichtigste Inhalte einer Informationskampagne zum Euro; Bedeutung einzelner Aktionen einer Informationskampagne; Einschätzung der Folgen der Einführung in den bereits den Euro nutzenden Ländern als positiv; Einschätzung der Folgen der Einführung für das eigene Land und für den Befragten persönlich; Präferenz für die Einführung des Euro im eigenen Land; bevorzugter Zeitpunkt für die Einführung des Euro im eigenen Land; erwartete Auswirkungen der Einführung auf die Preise im eigenen Land; erwartete Folgen der Einführung: Erleichterung von Preisvergleichen mit anderen Ländern, Erleichterung von Einkäufen in anderen Ländern, Kostensenkung beim Geldumtausch durch Aufheben von Gebühren, bequemeres Reisen in anderen Ländern, Schutz des eigenen Landes vor den Folgen internationaler Krisen, weitere Stärkung der Rolle des eigenen Landes in der EU; Vorzüge durch die Einführung des Euro für das eigene Land: niedrigere Zinssätze, solidere öffentliche Finanzen, Verbesserung von Wachstum und Beschäftigung, niedrige Inflationsraten, Stärkung der Rolle Europas in der Welt, Stärkung der europäischen Identifikation; Einstellung zu folgenden Aussagen zur Euro-Einführung: Überzeugung, sich persönlich an die neue Währung zu gewöhnen, Besorgnis über missbräuchliche Preisbildung während des Übergangs, Verlust der Kontrolle über die nationale Wirtschaftspolitik, Verlust der nationalen Identität. Demographie: Alter; Geschlecht; Staatsangehörigkeit; Alter bei Beendigung der Ausbildung; berufliche Stellung; Region; Urbanisierungsgrad; Besitz eines Mobiltelefons; Festnetztelefon im Haushalt; Anzahl der Personen ab 15 Jahren im Haushalt (Haushaltsgröße). Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Befragten-ID; Interviewmodus (Mobiltelefon oder Festnetz); Gewichtungsfaktor. Introduction of the euro in EU member states still using their national currency. Topics: contact with and use of euro banknotes or coins; use in the own country, abroad, or both; knowledge test on the euro: equal design of euro banknotes and coins in every country, number of countries that already introduced the euro; readiness of the own country to introduce the euro; year of introduction in the own country; self-rated knowledge on the euro; preferred time of information about the introduction of the euro in the own country; trust in information about the introduction provided by: national government or authorities, tax administrations, national central bank, European institutions, commercial banks, journalists, trade unions or professional organizations, consumer associations; preferred places of information about the euro and the changeover; most important issues to be covered by information campaigns; significance of selected information campaign actions; assessment of the impact of the introduction of the euro in the countries already using the euro as positive; assessment of the impact of the introduction on the own country and on personal life; preference for introducing the euro in the own country; preferred time for introducing the euro in the own country; expected impact of the introduction on the prices in the own country; expected impact of the introduction: easier price comparisons with other countries, easier shopping in other countries, save money by eliminating fees of currency exchange in other countries, more convenient travel in other countries, protection of the own country from the effects of international crises, further strengthening of the own country’s place in the EU; benefits from the adoption of the euro on the own country: lower interest rates, sounder public finances, improvement of growth and employment, low inflation rates, reinforcement of the place of Europe in the world, strengthening of the feeling of being European; attitude towards the following statements regarding the adoption of the euro: conviction to personally adapt to the new currency, concern about abusive price setting during the changeover, loss of control over national economic policy, loss of national identity. Demography: age; sex; nationality; age at end of education; professional position; region; type of community; own a mobile phone and fixed (landline) phone; household composition and household size. Additionally coded was: respondent ID; type of phone line; weighting factor.