Geographic Information System (GIS) Tools Market Outlook

The global Geographic Information System (GIS) Tools market is poised for significant expansion, with a projected market size of approximately $15.2 billion in 2023, anticipated to reach $28.6 billion by 2032, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.3%. This growth can be attributed to the increasing integration of advanced GIS technologies across various sectors such as agriculture, transportation, and government services, driven by the need for efficient data management and spatial analysis capabilities. The adoption of GIS tools is further influenced by the growing demand for real-time geographic data, which plays a crucial role in decision-making processes across multiple industries.

One of the primary growth factors for the GIS Tools market is the burgeoning demand for high-precision mapping and spatial data analytics. Industries such as agriculture and construction are increasingly relying on GIS technology to optimize resource management and streamline operations. The ability of GIS tools to provide detailed insights into geographical patterns and trends allows companies to make informed decisions, thereby improving operational efficiency and reducing costs. Additionally, advancements in remote sensing technology and data collection methods have significantly enhanced the accuracy and reliability of GIS data, further fueling its adoption across various sectors.

The increasing deployment of GIS tools in urban planning and smart city projects is another key driver of market growth. Governments worldwide are leveraging GIS technology to enhance infrastructure planning, improve public services, and manage environmental resources more effectively. The integration of GIS in smart city initiatives enables authorities to monitor and manage urban environments in real-time, leading to better resource allocation and improved quality of life for residents. As cities continue to expand and evolve, the demand for advanced GIS solutions is expected to grow exponentially, providing significant opportunities for market players.

Furthermore, the rise of location-based services and telematics has expanded the application of GIS tools in the transportation and logistics sectors. Companies are utilizing GIS technology to optimize route planning, track assets, and enhance supply chain management. The integration of GIS with telematics systems allows for real-time monitoring and analysis of vehicle movements, improving fleet efficiency and reducing operational costs. As the transportation industry continues to embrace digital transformation, the demand for GIS tools is likely to increase, further driving market growth.

In terms of regional outlook, North America currently leads the GIS Tools market, driven by high adoption rates of advanced technologies and significant investments in infrastructure development. The presence of major GIS solution providers and a well-established IT infrastructure further contribute to the region's dominance. However, the Asia Pacific region is expected to witness the highest growth during the forecast period, driven by rapid urbanization, increasing government initiatives for infrastructure development, and the growing adoption of GIS technology in emerging economies such as China and India. Europe and the Middle East & Africa regions are also expected to experience steady growth, supported by advancements in GIS applications and the rising need for efficient spatial data management solutions.

The role of a Gis Data Collector is increasingly becoming pivotal in the GIS Tools market. These professionals are responsible for gathering, verifying, and maintaining the spatial data that forms the backbone of GIS applications. With the growing emphasis on high-precision mapping and real-time data analysis, the demand for skilled Gis Data Collectors is on the rise. They play a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of geospatial information, which is essential for effective decision-making across various sectors. As industries continue to leverage advanced GIS technologies, the expertise of Gis Data Collectors will be indispensable in facilitating seamless data integration and enhancing the overall quality of GIS solutions.

Component Analysis

The GIS Tools market can be segmented by component into software, hardware, and services, each playing a vital role in the overall market dynamics. The software segment is expected to hold the largest market

GIS Receiver Market Outlook

The global GIS Receiver market size is projected to experience significant growth, with a market valuation of approximately USD 1.5 billion in 2023, and is expected to reach around USD 3.2 billion by 2032, reflecting a robust CAGR of 8.7% during the forecast period. The growth of this market is driven primarily by increasing demand for precise and real-time location data across various industries such as agriculture, construction, and transportation. The advancements in Geographic Information System (GIS) technology have significantly enhanced the capability and accuracy of GIS receivers, further propelling market demand. Additionally, the integration of GIS receivers with IoT and AI technologies is creating new avenues for market expansion.

One of the primary growth factors in the GIS Receiver market is the escalating need for enhanced accuracy in location-based services. As industries like agriculture and construction increasingly adopt precision technologies, GIS receivers play a crucial role in providing accurate geospatial data, which is essential for optimizing resource management and improving operational efficiency. This trend is further augmented by government initiatives aimed at modernizing infrastructure and urban planning, which rely heavily on precise GIS data for decision-making processes. Moreover, the proliferation of smart cities and the need for advanced mapping solutions have spurred investment in high-accuracy GIS receivers, thus driving market growth.

The expanding application of GIS technology in the transportation sector is another significant growth driver. As the transportation industry evolves, with an increasing focus on developing intelligent and autonomous systems, the demand for real-time geospatial data has risen sharply. GIS receivers are pivotal in facilitating efficient traffic management, route optimization, and asset tracking, thereby enhancing overall operational efficiency. Additionally, the integration of GIS receivers in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and autonomous vehicles has opened new possibilities, providing real-time data essential for navigation and safety. This integration is instrumental in maintaining the momentum of growth within the GIS Receiver market.

Technological advancements in GIS receivers have transformed the way industries operate, making them indispensable tools for data collection and analysis. The advent of Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) technology has enabled high-precision positioning, crucial for applications where even minute inaccuracies can lead to significant issues. The ongoing development of robust, user-friendly GIS platforms paired with these receivers has made geospatial data more accessible and actionable for a broader range of end-users. Furthermore, the increasing reliance on post-processing technology to refine and improve data accuracy post-collection is enhancing the value proposition of GIS receivers, thus fueling market growth.

Regionally, North America holds a dominant position in the GIS Receiver market, driven by vast investments in technological innovation and the presence of major industry players. The Asia Pacific region is expected to witness the highest growth rate, attributed to rapid urbanization and the increasing adoption of GIS technology in emerging economies. Europe also presents significant opportunities, where government initiatives focused on sustainable development and infrastructure projects are supporting market expansion. Meanwhile, Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are gradually enhancing their GIS infrastructure, although their market shares remain comparatively modest but swiftly rising, indicating potential future growth.

Product Type Analysis

The GIS Receiver market can be segmented based on product type into Handheld GIS Receivers, Differential GIS Receivers, and Survey-Grade GIS Receivers. Each product type serves specific user needs and use-case scenarios, with their respective advantages and areas of application. Handheld GIS Receivers are largely used for field surveys, allowing for portability and ease of use. These receivers are particularly favored in sectors such as agriculture and forestry, where mobility and quick data collection are essential. The increasing demand for portable and versatile data collection tools is driving the growth of the Handheld GIS Receivers segment.

Differential GIS Receivers offer improved accuracy through the application of differential correction techniques. These receivers are extensively used in applications requiring higher precision than what standard GPS receivers can prov

The Spatial Analysis Software market is experiencing robust growth, driven by the increasing adoption of cloud-based solutions, the expanding use of drones and other data acquisition technologies for precise geographic data collection, and the rising demand for advanced analytics across diverse sectors. The market's expansion is fueled by the need for efficient geospatial data processing and interpretation in applications such as urban planning, infrastructure development, environmental monitoring, and precision agriculture. Key trends include the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) for automating analysis and improving accuracy, the proliferation of readily available satellite imagery and sensor data, and the growing adoption of 3D modeling and visualization techniques. While data security concerns and the high initial investment costs for advanced software solutions pose some restraints, the overall market outlook remains positive, with a projected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) exceeding 10% (a reasonable estimate based on the rapid technological advancements and market penetration observed in related sectors). This growth is expected to be particularly strong in the North American and Asia-Pacific regions, driven by substantial government investments in infrastructure projects and burgeoning private sector adoption. The segmentation by application (architecture, engineering, and other sectors) reflects the versatility of spatial analysis software, enabling its use across various industries. Similarly, the choice between cloud-based and locally deployed solutions caters to specific organizational needs and technical capabilities. The competitive landscape is characterized by both established players and emerging technology companies, showcasing the dynamic nature of the market. Major players like Autodesk, Bentley Systems, and Trimble are leveraging their existing portfolios to integrate advanced spatial analysis capabilities, while smaller companies are focusing on niche applications and innovative analytical techniques. The ongoing advancements in both hardware and software, coupled with increasing data availability and affordability, are set to further fuel the market's growth in the coming years. The historical period (2019-2024) likely witnessed moderate growth as the market matured, laying the foundation for the accelerated expansion expected during the forecast period (2025-2033). Continued innovation and industry convergence will be key drivers shaping the future trajectory of the Spatial Analysis Software market.

A major objective of plant ecology research is to determine the underlying processes responsible for the observed spatial distribution patterns of plant species. Plants can be approximated as points in space for this purpose, and thus, spatial point pattern analysis has become increasingly popular in ecological research. The basic piece of data for point pattern analysis is a point location of an ecological object in some study region. Therefore, point pattern analysis can only be performed if data can be collected. However, due to the lack of a convenient sampling method, a few previous studies have used point pattern analysis to examine the spatial patterns of grassland species. This is unfortunate because being able to explore point patterns in grassland systems has widespread implications for population dynamics, community-level patterns and ecological processes. In this study, we develop a new method to measure individual coordinates of species in grassland communities. This method records plant growing positions via digital picture samples that have been sub-blocked within a geographical information system (GIS). Here, we tested out the new method by measuring the individual coordinates of Stipa grandis in grazed and ungrazed S. grandis communities in a temperate steppe ecosystem in China. Furthermore, we analyzed the pattern of S. grandis by using the pair correlation function g(r) with both a homogeneous Poisson process and a heterogeneous Poisson process. Our results showed that individuals of S. grandis were overdispersed according to the homogeneous Poisson process at 0-0.16 m in the ungrazed community, while they were clustered at 0.19 m according to the homogeneous and heterogeneous Poisson processes in the grazed community. These results suggest that competitive interactions dominated the ungrazed community, while facilitative interactions dominated the grazed community. In sum, we successfully executed a new sampling method, using digital photography and a Geographical Information System, to collect experimental data on the spatial point patterns for the populations in this grassland community.

Methods 1. Data collection using digital photographs and GIS

A flat 5 m x 5 m sampling block was chosen in a study grassland community and divided with bamboo chopsticks into 100 sub-blocks of 50 cm x 50 cm (Fig. 1). A digital camera was then mounted to a telescoping stake and positioned in the center of each sub-block to photograph vegetation within a 0.25 m2 area. Pictures were taken 1.75 m above the ground at an approximate downward angle of 90° (Fig. 2). Automatic camera settings were used for focus, lighting and shutter speed. After photographing the plot as a whole, photographs were taken of each individual plant in each sub-block. In order to identify each individual plant from the digital images, each plant was uniquely marked before the pictures were taken (Fig. 2 B).

Digital images were imported into a computer as JPEG files, and the position of each plant in the pictures was determined using GIS. This involved four steps: 1) A reference frame (Fig. 3) was established using R2V software to designate control points, or the four vertexes of each sub-block (Appendix S1), so that all plants in each sub-block were within the same reference frame. The parallax and optical distortion in the raster images was then geometrically corrected based on these selected control points; 2) Maps, or layers in GIS terminology, were set up for each species as PROJECT files (Appendix S2), and all individuals in each sub-block were digitized using R2V software (Appendix S3). For accuracy, the digitization of plant individual locations was performed manually; 3) Each plant species layer was exported from a PROJECT file to a SHAPE file in R2V software (Appendix S4); 4) Finally each species layer was opened in Arc GIS software in the SHAPE file format, and attribute data from each species layer was exported into Arc GIS to obtain the precise coordinates for each species. This last phase involved four steps of its own, from adding the data (Appendix S5), to opening the attribute table (Appendix S6), to adding new x and y coordinate fields (Appendix S7) and to obtaining the x and y coordinates and filling in the new fields (Appendix S8).

1. Data reliability assessment

To determine the accuracy of our new method, we measured the individual locations of Leymus chinensis, a perennial rhizome grass, in representative community blocks 5 m x 5 m in size in typical steppe habitat in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China in July 2010 (Fig. 4 A). As our standard for comparison, we used a ruler to measure the individual coordinates of L. chinensis. We tested for significant differences between (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, and (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler (see section 3.2 Data Analysis). If (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, and (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, did not differ significantly, then we could conclude that our new method of measuring the coordinates of L. chinensis was reliable.

We compared the results using a t-test (Table 1). We found no significant differences in either (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis or (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis. Further, we compared the pattern characteristics of L. chinensis when measured by our new method against the ruler measurements using a null model. We found that the two pattern characteristics of L. chinensis did not differ significantly based on the homogenous Poisson process or complete spatial randomness (Fig. 4 B). Thus, we concluded that the data obtained using our new method was reliable enough to perform point pattern analysis with a null model in grassland communities.

Initial Data Capture: Building were originally digitized using ESRI construction tools such as rectangle and polygon. Textron Feature Analyst was then used to digitize buildings using a semi-automated polygon capture tool as well as a fully automated supervised learning method. The method that proved to be most effective was the semi-automated polygon capture tool as the fully automated process produced polygons that required extensive cleanup. This tool increased the speed and accuracy of digitizing by 40%.Purpose of Data Created: To supplement our GIS viewers with a searchable feature class of structures within Ventura County that can aid in analysis for multiple agencies and the public at large.Types of Data Used: Aerial Imagery (Pictometry 2015, 9inch ortho/oblique, Pictometry 2018, 6inch ortho/oblique) Simi Valley Lidar Data (Q2 Harris Corp Lidar) Coverage of Data:Buildings have been collected from the aerial imageries extent. The 2015 imagery coverage the south county from the north in Ojai to the south in thousand oaks, to the east in Simi Valley, and to the West in the county line with Santa Barbara. Lockwood Valley was also captured in the 2015 imagery. To collect buildings for the wilderness areas we needed to use the imagery from 2007 when we last flew aerial imagery for the entire county. 2018 Imagery was used to capture buildings that were built after 2015.Schema: Fields: APN, Image Date, Image Source, Building Type, Building Description, Address, City, Zip, Data Source, Parcel Data (Year Built, Basement yes/no, Number of Floors) Zoning Data (Main Building, Out Building, Garage), First Floor Elevation, Rough Building Height, X/Y Coordinates, Dimensions. Confidence Levels/Methods:Address data: 90% All Buildings should have an address if they appear to be a building that would normally need an address (Main Residence). To create an address, we do a spatial join on the parcels from the centroid of a building polygon and extract the address data and APN. To collect the missing addresses, we can do a spatial join between the master address and the parcels and then the parcels back to the building polygons. Using a summarize to the APN field we will be able to identify the parcels that have multiple buildings and delete the address information for the buildings that are not a main residence.Building Type Data: 99% All buildings should have a building type according to the site use category code provided from the parcel table information. To further classify multiple buildings on parcels in residential areas, the shape area field was used to identify building polygons greater than 600 square feet as an occupied residence and all other buildings less than that size as outbuildings. All parcels, inparticular parcels with multiple buildings, are subject to classification error. Further defining could be possible with extensive quality control APN Data: 98% All buildings have received APN data from their associated parcel after a spatial join was performed. Building overlapping parcel lines had their centroid derived which allowed for an accurate spatial join.Troubleshooting Required: Buildings would sometimes overlap parcel lines making spatial joining inaccurate. To fix this you create a point from the centroid of the building polygon, join the parcel information to the point, then join the point with the parcel information back to the building polygon.

Snapshot img

Geospatial Analytics Market Size 2025-2029

The geospatial analytics market size is forecast to increase by USD 178.6 billion, at a CAGR of 21.4% between 2024 and 2029.

The market is experiencing significant growth, driven by the increasing adoption of geospatial analytics in sectors such as healthcare and insurance. This trend is fueled by the ability of geospatial analytics to provide valuable insights from location-based data, leading to improved operational efficiency and decision-making. Additionally, emerging methods in data collection and generation, including the use of drones and satellite imagery, are expanding the scope and potential of geospatial analytics. However, the market faces challenges, including data privacy and security concerns. With the vast amounts of sensitive location data being collected and analyzed, ensuring its protection is crucial for companies to maintain trust with their customers and avoid regulatory penalties. Navigating these challenges and capitalizing on the opportunities presented by the growing adoption of geospatial analytics requires a strategic approach from industry players. Companies must prioritize data security, invest in advanced analytics technologies, and collaborate with stakeholders to build trust and transparency. By addressing these challenges and leveraging the power of geospatial analytics, businesses can gain a competitive edge and unlock new opportunities in various industries.

What will be the Size of the Geospatial Analytics Market during the forecast period?

Explore in-depth regional segment analysis with market size data - historical 2019-2023 and forecasts 2025-2029 - in the full report.
Request Free SampleThe market continues to evolve, driven by the increasing demand for location-specific insights across various sectors. Urban planning relies on geospatial optimization and data enrichment to enhance city designs and improve infrastructure. Cloud-based geospatial solutions facilitate real-time data access, enabling location intelligence for public safety and resource management. Spatial data standards ensure interoperability among different systems, while geospatial software and data visualization tools provide valuable insights from satellite imagery and aerial photography. Geospatial services offer data integration, spatial data accuracy, and advanced analytics capabilities, including 3D visualization, route optimization, and data cleansing. Precision agriculture and environmental monitoring leverage geospatial data to optimize resource usage and monitor ecosystem health. Infrastructure management and real estate industries rely on geospatial data for asset tracking and market analysis. Spatial statistics and disaster management applications help mitigate risks and respond effectively to crises. Geospatial data management and quality remain critical as the volume and complexity of data grow. Geospatial modeling and interoperability enable seamless data sharing and collaboration. Sensor networks and geospatial data acquisition technologies expand the reach of geospatial analytics, while AI-powered geospatial analytics offer new opportunities for predictive analysis and automation. The ongoing development of geospatial technologies and applications underscores the market's continuous dynamism, providing valuable insights and solutions for businesses and organizations worldwide.

How is this Geospatial Analytics Industry segmented?

The geospatial analytics industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments. TechnologyGPSGISRemote sensingOthersEnd-userDefence and securityGovernmentEnvironmental monitoringMining and manufacturingOthersApplicationSurveyingMedicine and public safetyMilitary intelligenceDisaster risk reduction and managementOthersTypeSurface and field analyticsGeovisualizationNetwork and location analyticsOthersGeographyNorth AmericaUSCanadaEuropeFranceGermanyItalyUKAPACChinaIndiaJapanSouth AmericaBrazilRest of World (ROW)

By Technology Insights

The gps segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.The market encompasses various applications and technologies, including geospatial optimization, data enrichment, location-based services (LBS), spatial data standards, public safety, geospatial software, resource management, location intelligence, geospatial data visualization, geospatial services, data integration, 3D visualization, satellite imagery, remote sensing, GIS platforms, spatial data infrastructure, aerial photography, route optimization, data cleansing, precision agriculture, spatial interpolation, geospatial databases, transportation planning, spatial data accuracy, spatial analysis, map projections, interactive maps, marketing analytics, d

In this seminar, you will learn how to use the ArcGIS Data Reviewer Positional Accuracy Assessment Tool (PAAT) to assess data accuracy and interpret the results. You will learn how to embed data validation across workflows, influencing decisions relating to data and enhancing the accuracy of data across your organization.This seminar was developed to support the following:ArcGIS Desktop 10.3 (Basic, Standard, or Advanced)ArcGIS Data Reviewer for Desktop

Use Constraints:This mapping tool is for reference and guidance purposes only and is not a binding legal document to be used for legal determinations. The data provided may contain errors, inconsistencies, or may not in all cases appropriately represent the current boundaries of PWSs in California. The data in this map are subject to change at any time and should not be used as the sole source for decision making. By using this data, the user acknowledges all limitations of the data and agrees to accept all errors stemming from its use.Description:This mapping tool provides a representation of the general PWS boundaries for water service, wholesaler and jurisdictional areas. The boundaries were created originally by collection via crowd sourcing by CDPH through the Boundary Layer Tool, this tool was retired as of June 30, 2020. State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water is currently in the process of verifying the accuracy of these boundaries and working on a tool for maintaining the current boundaries and collecting boundaries for PWS that were not in the original dataset. Currently, the boundaries are in most cases have not been verified. Map Layers· Drinking Water System Areas – representation of the general water system boundaries maintained by the State Water Board. This layer contains polygons with associated data on the water system and boundary the shape represents.· LPA office locations – represents the locations of the Local Primacy Agency overseeing the water system in that county. Address and contact information are attributes of this dataset.· LPA office locations – represents the locations of the Local Primacy Agency overseeing the water system in that county. Address and contact information are attributes of this dataset· California Senate Districts – represents the boundaries of the senate districts in California included as a reference layer in order to perform analysis with the Drinking Water System Boundaries layers.· California Senate Districts – represents the boundaries of the assembly districts in California included as a reference layer in order to perform analysis with the Drinking Water System Boundaries layers.· California County – represents the boundaries of the counties in California included as a reference layer in order to perform analysis with the Drinking Water System Boundaries layers.Informational Pop-up Box for Boundary layer· Water System No. – unique identifier for each water system· Water System Name – name of water system· Regulating Agency – agency overseeing the water system· System Type – classification of water system.· Population the approximate population served by the water system· Boundary Type – the type of water system boundary being displayed· Address Line 1 – the street or mailing address on file for the water system· Address Line 2 – additional line for street or mailing address on file for the water system, if applicable· City – city where water system located or receives mail· County – county where water system is located· Verification Status – the verification status of the water system boundary· Verified by – if the boundary is verified, the person responsible for the verification Date Created and Sources:This web app was most recently updated on July, 21, 2021. Each layer has a data created date and data source is indicated in the overview/metadata page and is valid up to the date provided.

Analysis of ‘Calaveras County Land Use Survey 2015’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fea85768-adde-4fda-9015-05528085f4c9 on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Analysis of ‘Alpine County Land Use Survey 2013’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/d9f3ef8d-7754-4626-ad78-67daeb31c601 on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

This service depicts National Park Service tract and boundary data that was created by the Land Resources Division. NPS Director's Order #25 states: "Land status maps will be prepared to identify the ownership of the lands within the authorized boundaries of the park unit. These maps, showing ownership and acreage, are the 'official record' of the acreage of Federal and non-federal lands within the park boundaries. While these maps are the official record of the lands and acreage within the unit's authorized boundaries, they are not of survey quality and not intended to be used for survey purposes." As such this data is intended for use as a tool for GIS analysis. It is in no way intended for engineering or legal purposes. The data accuracy is checked against best available sources which may be dated and vary by location. NPS assumes no liability for use of this data. The boundary polygons represent the current legislated boundary of a given NPS unit. NPS does not necessarily have full fee ownership or hold another interest (easement, right of way, etc...) in all parcels contained within this boundary. Equivalently NPS may own or have an interest in parcels outside the legislated boundary of a given unit. In order to obtain complete information about current NPS interests both inside and outside a unit’s legislated boundary tract level polygons are also created by NPS Land Resources Division and should be used in conjunction with this boundary data. To download this data directly from the NPS go to https://irma.nps.gov Property ownership data is compiled from deeds, plats, surveys, and other source data. These are not engineering quality drawings and should be used for administrative purposes only. The National Park Service (NPS) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. These data and related graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The information contained in these data is dynamic and may change over time. The data are not better than the original sources from which they were derived. It is the responsibility of the data user to use the data appropriately and consistent within the limitations of geospatial data in general and these data in particular. The related graphics are intended to aid the data user in acquiring relevant data; it is not appropriate to use the related graphics as data. The National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from an NPS server and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the National Park Service, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the utility of the data on another system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data.

This map is designated as Final.Land-Use Data Quality ControlEvery published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process. Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legend specific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2015 Calaveras County land use survey data was developed by the State of California, Department of Water Resources (DWR) through its Division of Integrated Regional Water Management (DIRWM) and Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management (DSIWM). Land use boundaries were digitized and land use data were gathered by staff of DWR’s North Central Region using extensive field visits and aerial photography. Land use polygons in agricultural areas were mapped in greater detail than areas of urban or native vegetation. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DSIWM headquarters, under the leadership of Jean Woods, and North Central Region, under the supervision of: Kim Rosmaier. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. SPECIAL NOTE FOR CALAVERAS 2015 SURVEY The Calaveras 2015 landuse survey took place prior to the Butte Fire that impacted a large portion of Calaveras County during September 2015. The survey only shows landuse for pre-fire conditions. There was no survey post fire. This data represents a land use survey of Calaveras County conducted by the California Department of Water Resources, North Central Regional Office staff. Land use field boundaries were digitized with ArcGIS 10.3 using 2014 U.S.D.A National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) one-meter imagery as the base. Agricultural fields were delineated by following actual field boundaries instead of using the centerlines of roads to represent the field borders. Field boundaries were reviewed and updated using 2015 Landsat 8 imagery. Field boundaries were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, and are not meant to be used as parcel boundaries. The field work for this survey was conducted from August 31, 2015 through September 10, 2015. Images, land use boundaries and ESRI ArcMap software were loaded onto laptop computers that were used as the field data collection tools. Staff took these laptops into the field and virtually all agricultural fields were visited to identify the land use. Global positioning System (GPS) units connected to the laptops were used to confirm the surveyor's location with respect to the fields. Land use codes were digitized in the field using dropdown selections from defined domains. Agricultural fields the staff were unable to access were designated 'E' in the Class field for Entry Denied in accordance with the 2009 Landuse Legend. Upon completion of the survey, a Python script was used to convert the data table into the standard land use format. ArcGIS geoprocessing tools and topology rules were used to locate errors for quality control. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed. Rural residential land use was delineated by drawing polygons to surround houses and other buildings along with some of the surrounding land. These footprint areas do not represent the entire footprint of urban land. Sources of irrigation water were identified for general areas and occasionally supplemented by information obtained from landowners. Water source information was not collected for each field in the survey, so the water source listed for a specific agricultural field may not be accurate. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s North Central Region, and at DSIWM headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods. Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the orthorectified NAIP imagery, is approximately 6 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

Geoscience Australia has been deriving raster sediment datasets for the continental Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (AEEZ) using existing marine samples collected by Geoscience Australia and …Show full descriptionGeoscience Australia has been deriving raster sediment datasets for the continental Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (AEEZ) using existing marine samples collected by Geoscience Australia and external organisations. Since seabed sediment data are collected at sparsely and unevenly distributed locations, spatial interpolation methods become essential tools for generating spatially continuous information. Previous studies have examined a number of factors that affect the performance of spatial interpolation methods. These factors include sample density, data variation, sampling design, spatial distribution of samples, data quality, correlation of primary and secondary variables, and interaction among some of these factors. Apart from these factors, a spatial reference system used to define sample locations is potentially another factor and is worth investigating. In this study, we aim to examine the degree to which spatial reference systems can affect the predictive accuracy of spatial interpolation methods in predicting marine environmental variables in the continental AEEZ. Firstly, we reviewed spatial reference systems including geographic coordinate systems and projected coordinate systems/map projections, with particular attention paid to map projection classification, distortion and selection schemes; secondly, we selected eight systems that are suitable for the spatial prediction of marine environmental data in the continental AEEZ. These systems include two geographic coordinate systems (WGS84 and GDA94) and six map projections (Lambert Equal-area Azimuthal, Equidistant Azimuthal, Stereographic Conformal Azimuthal, Albers Equal-Area Conic, Equidistant Conic and Lambert Conformal Conic); thirdly, we applied two most commonly used spatial interpolation methods, i.e. inverse distance squared (IDS) and ordinary kriging (OK) to a marine dataset projected using the eight systems. The accuracy of the methods was assessed using leave-one-out cross validation in terms of their predictive errors and, visualization of prediction maps. The difference in the predictive errors between WGS84 and the map projections were compared using paired Mann-Whitney test for both IDW and OK. The data manipulation and modelling work were implemented in ArcGIS and R. The result from this study confirms that the little shift caused by the tectonic movement between WGS84 and GDA94 does not affect the accuracy of the spatial interpolation methods examined (IDS and OK). With respect to whether the unit difference in geographical coordinates or distortions introduced by map projections has more effect on the performance of the spatial interpolation methods, the result shows that the accuracies of the spatial interpolation methods in predicting seabed sediment data in the SW region of AEEZ are similar and the differences are considered negligible, both in terms of predictive errors and prediction map visualisations. Among the six map projections, the slightly better prediction performance from Lambert Equal-Area Azimuthal and Equidistant Azimuthal projections for both IDS and OK indicates that Equal-Area and Equidistant projections with Azimuthal surfaces are more suitable than other projections for spatial predictions of seabed sediment data in the SW region of AEEZ. The outcomes of this study have significant implications for spatial predictions in environmental science. Future spatial prediction work using a data density greater than that in this study may use data based on WGS84 directly and may not have to project the data using certain spatial reference systems. The findings are applicable to spatial predictions of both marine and terrestrial environmental variables. You can also purchase hard copies of Geoscience Australia data and other products at http://www.ga.gov.au/products-services/how-to-order-products/sales-centre.html

Analysis of ‘Northern Mono County Land Use Survey 2010’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/c95e391c-64e3-4363-8385-f7cb946f3fbb on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Layers in this dataset represent Public Land Survey System subdivisions for Canadian County. Included are Townships, Sections, Quarter Sections and Government Lots. This data was created from 2019 to 2021 as part of a project to update county parcel data in partnership with ProWest & Associates (https://www.prowestgis.com/) and CEC Corporation (https://www.connectcec.com/). Corners were located to the quarter section level and additional corners were determined for the South Canadian River meanders based on the original government surveys. Quarter section corners were located using Certified Corner Records ( filed by Oklahoma licensed professional surveyors with the Oklahoma Department of Libraries where those records included coordinates. When a corner record could not be found or did not include coordinates, other interpolation methods were employed. These included connecting known corner record locations to unknown corners using data from filed subdivisions or from highway plans on record with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Where no corner records with coordinates were available and no interpolation methods could be used, aerial inspection was used to locate corners as the last option.Corner location accuracy varies as the method of locating the corner varies. For corners located using Certified Corner Records, accuracy is high depending on the age of the corner record and can possibly be less than 1 U.S. Foot. For corners located using interpolation methods, accuracy depends on the additional material used to interpolate the corner. In general, newer subdivisions and highway plans yield higher accuracy. For meander corners located using original government surveys, accuracy will be low due to the age of those surveys which date to the 1870's at the earliest. Additionally, corners that were located with aerials as the last available option cannot be assumed to be accurate.The data was built at the quarter section level first by connecting located corners and larger subdivisions were created from the quarter sections. For townships that extend into Grady County, township lines were only roughly located outside sections not in Canadian County.

Eelgrass Beds Historic Set:

Historic Eelgrass Points is a 1:24,000-scale, point feature-based layer that depicts the locations of historic eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) in Long Island Sound, the Connecticut River, the Quinnipiac River and other bays, harbors and waterbodies in Connecticut's coastal area. It also includes several points located along the north shore of Long Island. There are a total of 131 point features, the majority of which are located east of the Connecticut River. Point features in this layer are compiled from two major sources: 1) the polygon feature label points in the Historic Eelgrass Beds polygon layer representing sources with a mapping component; and 2) additional points that were based on historic literature review that had no mapping component. Source information including source description and collection date for each point is described in the layer's table data. Feature locations are inexact. Because of the variety of source maps and methods used for their automation, this coverage should be considered to have limited spatial accuracy and is appropriate for general uses only. Actual data collection ranged from 1873 through 1996. This layer was published in 1997 and is not updated. It does not represent current conditions.

Historic Eelgrass Bed Polygons is a 1:24,000-scale, polygon feature-based layer that depicts the locations of historic eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) in Long Island Sound and the Niantic River, as well as in other bays, harbors and waterbodies in Connecticut's coastal area. It also includes several points located along the north shore of Long Island. There are a total of 52 polygon features, all of which (except the Long Island points), are located within or east of the Niantic River. This layer can be used with Historic Eelgrass Points. This layer does not represent current conditions. Rather, it depicts historic eelgrass bed locations that were observed and defined either cartographically or narratively over the course of many years and from various sources. The dates of each source's data collection are noted in the attribute table. Feature locations are inexact. Because of the variety of source maps and methods used for their automation, this information should be considered to have limited spatial accuracy and is appropriate for general uses only. The data was taken from maps of various scales and projections that were drawn between 1905 and 1996. These maps were reduced to approximately 1:24,000 scale and adjusted for best fit; eelgrass areas were redrafted onto USGS Topographic Quadrangle maps for digitizing. In order to create a single polygon coverage, areas were considered to represent a maximum extent of eelgrass beds. This layer was published in 1997 and is not updated.

This map is designated as Final.Land-Use Data Quality ControlEvery published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process.Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legendspecific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional datasets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2009 El Dorado County land use survey data was developed by the State of California, Department of Water Resources (DWR) through its Division of Integrated Regional Water Management (DIRWM) and Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management (DSIWM). Land use boundaries were digitized and land use data was gathered by staff of DWR’s North Central Region using extensive field visits and aerial photography. Land use polygons in agricultural areas were mapped in greater detail than areas of urban or native vegetation. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DSIWM headquarters, under the leadership of Jean Woods, and North Central Region, under the supervision of: Kim Rosmaier. This data was developed to monitor land use for the primary purpose of quantifying water use within this study area and determining changes in water use associated with land use changes over time. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of El Dorado County conducted by the California Department of Water Resources, North Central Regional Office staff. For digitizing, the county was subdivided into three areas using the centerline of U.S. Route 50 and a north/south line for boundaries. Land use field boundaries were digitized with ArcGIS 9.3 using 2005 U.S.D.A National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) one-meter imagery as the base. Agricultural fields were delineated by following actual field boundaries instead of using the centerlines of roads to represent the field borders. The three digitized shapefiles were merged into a single file and the shared boundaries were removed. Field boundaries were reviewed and updated using 2009 NAIP imagery when it became available. Field boundaries were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. The field work for this survey was conducted between the end of July and the first week of November 2009. Images, land use boundaries and ESRI ArcMap software, version 9.3 were loaded onto laptop computers that were used as the field data collection tools. Staff took these laptops into the field and virtually all agricultural fields were visited to positively identify the land use. Global positioning System (GPS) units connected to the laptops were used to confirm the surveyor's location with respect to the fields. Land use codes were digitized in the field using customized menus to enter land use attributes. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation, so some urban areas may have been missed. Especially in rural residential areas, urban land use was delineated by drawing polygons to surround houses or other buildings along with a minimal area of land surrounding these structures. These footprint areas represent the locations of structures but do not represent the entire footprint of urban land. Information on sources of irrigation water was identified for general areas and occasionally supplemented by information obtained from landowners or by the observation of wells. Water source information was not collected for each field in the survey, so the water source listed for a specific agricultural field may not be accurate. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s North Central Region, and at DSIWM headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods. Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the orthorectified NAIP imagery, is approximately 6 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

This project explores the feasibility of integrating solar-powered infrastructure into bike pathways as a sustainable energy and transportation solution for California. Using advanced tools like ArcGIS (for analysis), PVWatts, SAM, and JEDI, this study evaluates the economic, environmental, and technical implications through a conceptual case study based in Riverside. Insights drawn from global case studies and stakeholder feedback highlight challenges such as financial constraints, regulatory complexities, and technical design considerations, while also identifying opportunities for renewable energy generation, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and enhanced urban mobility. The conceptual case study serves as a framework for assessing potential benefits and informing actionable strategies. Recommendations address barriers and align implementation with California’s climate action and sustainability goals, offering a roadmap for integrating renewable energy with active transportation sy..., The data collection and processing methods for this project utilized a combination of publicly available tools and resources to ensure accuracy and usability. Key geospatial, energy modeling, and economic analysis data were gathered using reliable tools such as ArcGIS, SAM, JEDI, and PVWatts, with outputs systematically processed into accessible formats. This approach enabled comprehensive analysis of bike path integration, energy performance, and economic impacts.

Data Collection:

BikePaths_Riverside.qgz: Geospatial data detailing bike paths in Riverside was gathered from publicly available sources and initially analyzed using ArcGIS Pro. To ensure open access and reusability, the data has been converted to a .qgz project file compatible with QGIS (version 3.42), a free and open-source GIS platform.

SAM_Input_Variable_Values.csv: Input parameters were collected based on standard system specifications, financial assumptions, and default or adjusted inputs available in the System Ad..., , # Data for: Solar bike path feasibility study in California

https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.4tmpg4fn1

Description of the data and file structure

The data was collected to evaluate the feasibility, technical requirements, and potential impacts of integrating solar-powered infrastructure into bike pathways. The study utilized geospatial data from ArcGIS for spatial analysis and site evaluation, combined with energy modeling tools such as PVWatts and SAM to estimate energy production, greenhouse gas reductions, and financial metrics. The JEDI model was employed to assess economic and job creation impacts. These efforts were guided by a conceptual case study in Riverside, California, to simulate real-world scenarios and inform actionable strategies for renewable energy integration. Feedback from stakeholders further shaped the analysis, addressing technical, economic, and regulatory challenges while aligning with California's sustainability goa...,

Every published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process. Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legendspecific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2013 Alpine County land use survey data was developed by the State of California, Department of Water Resources (DWR) through its Division of Integrated Regional Water Management (DIRWM) and Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management (DSIWM). Land use boundaries were digitized and land use data were gathered by staff of DWR’s North Central Region using extensive field visits and aerial photography. The land uses that were mapped were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The land use data went through standard quality control procedures before final processing. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DSIWM headquarters, under the leadership of Jean Woods, and North Central Region, under the supervision of Kim Rosmaier. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Alpine County conducted by the California Department of Water Resources, North Central Regional Office staff. Land use field boundaries were digitized with ArcGIS 10.0 and 10.2 using 2012 U.S.D.A National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) one-meter imagery as the base. Agricultural fields were delineated by following actual field boundaries instead of using the centerlines of roads to represent the field borders. Field boundaries were reviewed and updated using 2013 Landsat 8 imagery. Field boundaries were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, and are not meant to be used as parcel boundaries. The field work for this survey was conducted during September 2013. Images, land use boundaries and ESRI ArcMap software were loaded onto laptop computers that were used as the field data collection tools. Staff took these laptops into the field and virtually all agricultural fields were visited to identify the land use. Global positioning System (GPS) units connected to the laptops were used to confirm the surveyor's location with respect to the fields. Land use codes were digitized in the field using dropdown selections from defined domains. Upon completion of the survey, a Python script was used to convert the data table into the standard land use format. ArcGIS geoprocessing tools and topology rules were used to locate errors for quality control. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Rural residential land use was delineated by drawing polygons to surround houses and other buildings along with some of the surrounding land. These footprint areas do not represent the entire footprint of urban land. Sources of irrigation water were identified for general areas and occasionally supplemented by information obtained from landowners. Water source information was not collected for each field in the survey, so the water source listed for a specific agricultural field may not be accurate. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the orthorectified NAIP imagery, is approximately 6 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.