Thinking Spatially Using GIS

Thinking Spatially Using GIS is a 1:1 set of instructional materials for students that use ArcGIS Online to teach basic geography concepts found in upper elementary school and above.
Each module has both a teacher and student file.

Before Europeans came to America, Native Americans had been living on the land for thousands of years.

Starting in the early 1600s, many people from Europe started coming to America to settle the same lands where millions of Native Americans had lived, hunted, fished, farmed, and traveled. The first European settlements were along the Atlantic Coast.

In the first 150 years after Europeans started coming to America (until about 1765), European settlement spread from the Atlantic Coast to the Appalachian Mountains. In the next one hundred years, settlement advanced all the way to the Pacific Ocean. As European settlements spread westward, Native American tribes were killed or driven off their lands and forced to move westward onto reservations.

The Thinking Spatially Using GIS home is at: http://esriurl.com/TSG

All Esri GeoInquiries can be found at: http://www.esri.com/geoinquiries

A web map used to access tax parcel, boundary, ownership, acreage, survey, zoning and tax information. Errors and Omissions Do Exist.The information provided is for reference only and subject to independent verification. User assumes all responsibility for its use.https://www.fayette-co-oh.com/Fayette County ProfileFayette County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio. Its county seat is Washington Court House. Fayette County was formed on March 1, 1810 from portions of Highland County and Ross County. It was named after Marie-Joseph Motier, Marquis de La Fayette, a French general and politician who took the side of the Colonials during the American Revolutionary War and who played an important role in the French Revolution.Fayette County is a part of the Virginia Military survey, which was reserved in 1783, to be allotted to Virginia soldiers. This district includes the entire counties of Adams, Brown, Clermont, Clinton, Highland, Fayette, Madison and Union; and a portion of the counties of Scioto, Pike, Ross, Pickaway, Franklin, Delaware, Marion, Hardin, Logan, Champaign, Clarke, Greene, Warren and Hamilton.Fayette County was formed January 19, 1810 (took effect March 1st) from Ross and Highland counties. Beginning at the southwest corner of Pickaway, running north “with the line of said county to the corner of Madison; thence west with the line of said Madison county to the line of Greene county; thence south with the line of Greene county to the southeast corner thereof; thence east five miles; thence south to the line of Highland county; thence east with said line to Paint Creek; thence in a straight line to the beginning.” All the lower portion was taken from Highland and the upper from Ross.The first portion of land entered within the territory of what is now Fayette county, was a part of original surveys Nos. 243 and 772, lying partly in Clinton county. The first survey lying wholly within Fayette county was No. 463, in what is now Madison township, surveyed for Thomas Overton by John O’Bannon June 30, 1776.The original townships were Jefferson, Greene, Wayne, Madison, Paint and Union. Concord township was formed in April 1818, from Greene. Marion township was formed in June, 1840 from Madison. Perry township was formed June 4, 1845, from Wayne and Greene. Jasper township was formed from Jefferson and Concord December 2, 1845.Washington C.H. was laid out originally on a part of entry 757, which contained 1200 acres and belonged to Benjamin Temple, of Logan county, Kentucky, who donated 150 acres to Fayette county, on condition that it be used as the site of the county seat. The deed of conveyance was made December 1, 1810, by Thomas S. Hind, attorney for Temple, to Robert Stewart, who was appointed by the legislature as director for the town of Washington. The town was laid off some time between December 1, 1810, and February 26, 1811, the latter being the date of the record of the town plat.Bloomingburg (originally called New Lexington) was laid out in 1815, by Solomon Bowers, and originally contained 34 and ¾ acres. On March 4, 1816, Bowers laid out and added twenty more lots. The name of the town was later changed to Bloomingburg by act of the legislature. The town was incorporated by act of the legislature, February 5, 1847.Jeffersonville was laid out March 1, 1831, by Walter B. Write and Chipman Robinson, on 100 acres of land belonging to them, they started selling the lots at $5 each. The town incorporated March 17, 1838. The first house was erected by Robert Wyley.The first railroad, now the C. & M. V., was completed in 1852; the second, now the Detroit Southern, in 1875; the third, now the C.H. & D. in 1879; and the fourth, now the B. & O. S. W., in 1884.The first permanent settler (probably) was a Mr. Wolf who settled in what is now Wayne township, in about the year 1796. - Circa 1886 - Map of Fayette County, Ohio. Issued by the Fayette County Record.

Contents: This is an ArcGIS Pro zip file that you can download and use for creating map books based on United States National Grid (USNG). It contains a geodatabase, layouts, and tasks designed to teach you how to create a basic map book.Version 1.0.0 Uploaded on May 24th and created with ArcGIS Pro 2.1.3 - Please see the README below before getting started!Updated to 1.1.0 on August 20thUpdated to 1.2.0 on September 7thUpdated to 2.0.0 on October 12thUpdate to 2.1.0 on December 29thBack to 1.2.0 due to breaking changes in the templateBack to 1.0.0 due to breaking changes in the template as of June 11th 2019Updated to 2.1.1 on October 8th 2019Audience: GIS Professionals and new users of ArcGIS Pro who support Public Safety agencies with map books. If you are looking for apps that can be used by any public safety professional, see the USNG Lookup Viewer.Purpose: To teach you how to make a map book with critical infrastructure and a basemap, based on USNG. You NEED to follow the steps in the task and not try to take shortcuts the first time you use this task in order to receive the full benefits. Background: This ArcGIS Pro template is meant to be a starting point for your map book projects and is based on best practices by the USNG National Implementation Center (TUNIC) at Delta State University and is hosted by the NAPSG Foundation. This does not replace previous templates created in ArcMap, but is a new experimental approach to making map books. We will continue to refine this template and work with other organizations to make improvements over time. So please send us your feedback admin@publicsafetygis.org and comments below. Instructions: Download the zip file by clicking on the thumbnail or the Download button.Unzip the file to an appropriate location on your computer (C:\Users\YourUsername\Documents\ArcGIS\Projects is a common location for ArcGIS Pro Projects).Open the USNG Map book Project File (APRX).If the Task is not already open by default, navigate to Catalog > Tasks > and open 'Create a US National Grid Map Book' Follow the instructions! This task will have some automated processes and models that run in the background but you should pay close attention to the instructions so you also learn all of the steps. This will allow you to innovate and customize the template for your own use.FAQsWhat is US National Grid? The US National Grid (USNG) is a point and area reference system that provides for actionable location information in a uniform format. Its use helps achieve consistent situational awareness across all levels of government, disciplines, and threats & hazards – regardless of your role in an incident.One of the key resources NAPSG makes available to support emergency responders is a basic USNG situational awareness application. See the NAPSG Foundation and USNG Center websites for more information.What is an ArcGIS Pro Task? A task is a set of preconfigured steps that guide you and others through a workflow or business process. A task can be used to implement a best-practice workflow, improve the efficiency of a workflow, or create a series of interactive tutorial steps. See "What is a Task?" for more information.Do I need to be proficient in ArcGIS Pro to use this template? We feel that this is a good starting point if you have already taken the ArcGIS Pro QuickStart Tutorials. While the task will automate many steps, you will want to get comfortable with the map layouts and other new features in ArcGIS Pro.Is this template free? This resources is provided at no-cost, but also with no guarantees of quality assurance or support at this time. Can't I just use ArcMap? Ok - here you go. USNG 1:24K Map Template for ArcMapKnown Limitations and BugsZoom To: It appears there may be a bug or limitation with automatically zooming the map to the proper extent, so get comfortable with navigation or zoom to feature via the attribute table.FGDC Compliance: We are seeking feedback from experts in the field to make sure that this meets minimum requirements. At this point in time we do not claim to have any official endorsement of standardization. File Size: Highly detailed basemaps can really add up and contribute to your overall file size, especially over a large area / many pages. Consider making a simple "Basemap" of street centerlines and building footprints.We will do the best we can to address limitations and are very open to feedback!

Geographic Information System (GIS) is a system that captures, stores, manipulates, analyzes, manages, and presents spatial or geographical data. As this technological environment has been created to deal with space problems, it is perfectly adaptable to solve these type of issues in the context of vertebrate comparative morphology. The pectoral and pelvic girdles are key structures that relate the axial skeleton with the limbs in tetrapods. Owed to their importance in locomotion, the morphology, development, and morphogenesis of these structures have been widely studied. The complexity of the structures and tissues implied in the development of the girdles make quantitative approaches extremely difficult. The use of GIS technology provides a visual interpretation of the histological data, a general quantitative assessment of the processes taking place during the ontogeny of any structure, and would allow collecting information about the changes in the surface occupied by the different tissues across the ontogenetic processes of any vertebrate taxa. GIS technology applied to map morphological structures would be a main contribution to the construction of the vertebrate ontologies, as it would facilitate the identification and location of the structures. GIS technology would allow also us to construct a shared database of histological quantitative changes across the ontogeny in any vertebrate. The main objective of this study is to use GIS technology for spatial analysis of histological samples such as these of the pelvic girdle using histological cuts of anurans and chicken, allowing thus to construct a morphoscape, analogous to a landscape. This is the first attempt to apply GIS tools to ontogenetic series to infer biological properties of the spatial analysis in the context of comparative biology. More frequent use of this technology would contribute to obtaining more profitable and biologically informative results.

Athough MassGIS has served trails information from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) for many years, this new Trails layer is MassGIS’ first attempt at a statewide, multi-sourced dataset. This layer was created from two primary sources, DCR Trails and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC) Trailmap. Additionally, a few other trail networks were added from OpenStreetMap (OSM), municipalities, and conservation organizations, but the amount of information from these sources is relatively small.This trails dataset was created for use in the State 9-1-1 Department’s mapping application Response Assist and is intended to assist telecommunicators with lost hikers as well as potentially responding to emergencies within remote areas. Because the layer is primarily being used by 9-1-1, it was decided to focus on those trails found in wilderness areas and used as hiking trails. This resulted in the omission of many arcs from the source data. Examples of these include cart paths on golf courses, the network of paved paths on school campuses, sidewalks, and many other arcs that could functionally serve as trails but were in relatively open and developed areas.Updated with linework from OpenStreetMap in summer 2023 and published on November 14, 2023.See full metadata.Feature service also available.

This dataset represents a unique compiled environmental data set for the circumpolar Arctic ocean region 45N to 90N region. It consists of 170 layers (mostly marine, some terrestrial) in ArcGIS 10 format to be used with a Geographic Information System (GIS) and which are listed below in detail. Most layers are long-term average raster GRIDs for the summer season, often by ocean depth, and represent value-added products easy to use. The sources of the data are manifold such as the World Ocean Atlas 2009 (WOA09), International Bathimetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO), Canadian Earth System Model 2 (CanESM2) data (the newest generation of models available) and data sources such as plankton databases and OBIS. Ocean layers were modeled and predicted into the future and zooplankton species were modeled based on future data: Calanus hyperboreus (AphiaID104467), Metridia longa (AphiaID 104632), M. pacifica (AphiaID 196784) and Thysanoessa raschii (AphiaID 110711). Some layers are derived within ArcGIS. Layers have pixel sizes between 1215.819573 meters and 25257.72929 meters for the best pooled model, and between 224881.2644 and 672240.4095 meters for future climate data. Data was then reprojected into North Pole Stereographic projection in meters (WGS84 as the geographic datum). Also, future layers are included as a selected subset of proposed future climate layers from the Canadian CanESM2 for the next 100 years (scenario runs rcp26 and rcp85). The following layer groups are available: bathymetry (depth, derived slope and aspect); proximity layers (to,glaciers,sea ice, protected areas, wetlands, shelf edge); dissolved oxygen, apparent oxygen, percent oxygen, nitrogen, phosphate, salinity, silicate (all for August and for 9 depth classes); runoff (proximity, annual and August); sea surface temperature; waterbody temperature (12 depth classes); modeled ocean boundary layers (H1, H2, H3 and Wx).This dataset is used for a M.Sc. thesis by the author, and freely available upon request. For questions and details we suggest contacting the authors. Process_Description: Please contact Moritz Schmid for the thesis and detailed explanations. Short version: We model predicted here for the first time ocean layers in the Arctic Ocean based on a unique dataset of physical oceanography. Moreover, we developed presence/random absence models that indicate where the studied zooplankton species are most likely to be present in the Arctic Ocean. Apart from that, we develop the first spatially explicit models known to science that describe the depth in which the studied zooplankton species are most likely to be at, as well as their distribution of life stages. We do not only do this for one present day scenario. We modeled five different scenarios and for future climate data. First, we model predicted ocean layers using the most up to date data from various open access sources, referred here as best-pooled model data. We decided to model this set of stratification layers after discussions and input of expert knowledge by Professor Igor Polyakov from the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. We predicted those stratification layers because those are the boundaries and layers that the plankton has to cross for diel vertical migration and a change in those would most likely affect the migration. I assigned 4 variables to the stratification layers. H1, H2, H3 and Wx. H1 is the lower boundary of the mixed layer depth. Above this layer a lot of atmospheric disturbance is causing mixing of the water, giving the mixed layer its name. H2, the middle of the halocline is important because in this part of the ocean a strong gradient in salinity and temperature separates water layers. H3, the isotherm is important, because beneath it flows denser and colder Atlantic water. Wx summarizes the overall width of the described water column. Ocean layers were predicted using machine learning algorithms (TreeNet, Salford Systems). Second, ocean layers were included as predictors and used to predict the presence/random absence, most likely depth and life stage layers for the zooplankton species: Calanus hyperboreus, Metridia longa, Metridia pacifica and Thysanoessa raschii, This process was repeated for future predictions based on the CanESM2 data (see in the data section). For zooplankton species the following layers were developed and for the future. C. hyperboreus: Best-pooled model as well as future predictions (rcp26 including ocean layer(also excluding), rcp85 including oocean layers (also excluding) for 2010 and 2100.For parameters: Presence/random absence, most likely depth and life stage layers M. longa: Best-pooled model as well as future predictions (rcp26 including ocean layer(also excluding), rcp85 including oocean layers (also excluding) for 2010 and 2100. For parameters: Presence/rand... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/f63d0f6c-7d53-46ce-b755-42a368007601 for complete metadata about this dataset.

City of Austin Open Data Terms of Use https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/ranj-cccq This dataset was created to depict approximate tree canopy cover for all land within the City of Austin's "full watershed regulation area." Intended for planning purposes and measuring citywide percent canopy. Definition: Tree canopy is defined as the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above. Methods: The 2022 tree canopy layer was derived from satellite imagery (Maxar) and aerial imagery (NAIP). Images were used to extract tree canopy into GIS vector features. First, a “visual recognition engine” generated the vector features. The engine used machine learning algorithms to detect and label image pixels as tree canopy. Then using prior knowledge of feature geometries, more modeling algorithms were used to predict and transform probability maps of labeled pixels into finished vector polygons depicting tree canopy. The resulting features were reviewed and edited through manual interpretation by GIS professionals. When appropriate, NAIP 2022 aerial imagery supplemented satellite images that had cloud cover, and a manual editing process made sure tree canopy represented 2022 conditions. Finally, an independent accuracy assessment was performed by the City of Austin and the Texas A&M Forest Service for quality assurance. GIS professionals assessed agreement between the tree canopy data and its source satellite imagery. An overall accuracy of 98% was found. Only 23 errors were found out of a total 1,000 locations reviewed. These were mostly omission errors (e.g. not including canopy in this dataset when canopy is shown in the satellite or aerial image). Best efforts were made to ensure ground-truth locations contained a tree on the ground. To ensure this, location data were used from City of Austin and Texas A&M Forest Service databases. Analysis: The City of Austin measures tree canopy using the calculation: acres of tree canopy divided by acres of land. The area of interest for the land acres is evaluated at the City of Austin's jurisdiction including Full Purpose, Limited Purpose, and Extraterritorial jurisdictions as of May 2023. New data show, in 2022, tree canopy covered 41% of the total land area within Austin's city limits (using city limit boundaries May 2023 and included in the download as layer name "city_of_austin_2023"). 160,046.50 canopy acres (2022) / 395,037.53 land acres = 40.51% ~41%. This compares to 36% last measured in 2018, and a historical average that’s also hovered around 36%. The time period between 2018 and 2022 saw a 5 percentage point change resulting in over 19K acres of canopy gained (estimated). Data Disclaimer: It's possible changes in percent canopy over the years is due to annexation and improved data methods (e.g. higher resolution imagery, AI, software used, etc.) in addition to actual in changes in tree canopy cover on the ground. For planning purposes only. Dataset does not account for individual trees, tree species nor any metric for tree canopy height. Tree canopy data is provided in vector GIS format housed in a Geodatabase. Download and unzip the folder to get started. Please note, errors may exist in this dataset due to the variation in species composition and land use found across the study area. This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. This product has been produced by the City of Austin for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. Data Provider: Ecopia AI Tech Corporation and PlanIT Geo, Inc. Data derived from Maxar Technologies, Inc. and USDA NAIP imagery

Stone tool use by wild chimpanzees of West Africa offers a unique opportunity to explore the evolutionary roots of technology during human evolution. However, detailed analyses of chimpanzee stone artifacts are still lacking, thus precluding a comparison with the earliest archaeological record. This paper presents the first systematic study of stone tools used by wild chimpanzees to crack open nuts in Bossou (Guinea-Conakry), and applies pioneering analytical techniques to such artifacts. Automatic morphometric GIS classification enabled to create maps of use wear over the stone tools (anvils, hammers, and hammers/ anvils), which were blind tested with GIS spatial analysis of damage patterns identified visually. Our analysis shows that chimpanzee stone tool use wear can be systematized and specific damage patterns discerned, allowing to discriminate between active and passive pounders in lithic assemblages. In summary, our results demonstrate the heuristic potential of combined suites of GIS techniques for the analysis of battered artifacts, and have enabled creating a referential framework of analysis in which wild chimpanzee battered tools can for the first time be directly compared to the early archaeological record.

The First International Workshop on Historical GIS was held on Aug 23rd - 24th, 2001 at Fudan University, Shanghai, China. The Workshop was hosted by the Center for Historical Geographical Studies at Fudan, and organized by: Jianxiong GE (Fudan University), Peter Bol (Harvard University), Ruth Mostern (U.C. Berkeley) , and Lex Berman (Harvard University). RELATED WEBSITE: https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chgis/pages/agendas/shanghai_2001.html

State of Maryland municipality boundary dataset.Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) maps annexations from municipalities. This dataset is created and maintained by the Maryland Department of Planning. These boundaries are not intended to serve as a legal description. Fields:MUN_NAME (Municipality Name): Name of Municipality located in Maryland.RESOLUTION_NUMBER (Resolution Number): Local Municipality Annexation Resolution Number.ANNEXATION_DATE (Annexation Date) (DD/MM/YYYY): The Annexation Date field shows when there's been a change in the boundary. This date is known as the “Effective Date” from the municipality. The date 1/1/1997 is used as a default date of when annexation changes were first indicated in the GIS layer and not necessarily of when it was actually annexed. If there's a date of 1/1/1997, it can be assumed that the annexation occurred on this date or before. For example, for Baltimore City, the city boundary was determined hundreds of years ago. Other than that default date, the date will show when the property was annexed. ACRES (GIS Acres): GIS calculated acresJURSCODE (Jurisdiction Code) – Four letter county code: ALLE (Allegany), ANNE (Anne Arundel), BACI (Baltimore City), BACO (Baltimore County), CALV (Calvert), CARO (Caroline), CARR (Carroll), CECI (Cecil), CHAR (Charles), DORC (Dorchester), FRED (Frederick), GARR (Garrett), HARF (Harford), HOWA (Howard), KENT (Kent), MONT (Montgomery), PRIN (Prince George’s) QUEE (Queen Anne’s), SOME (Somerset), STMA (St. Mary’s), TALB (Talbot), WASH (Washington), WICO (Wicomico), WORC (Worcester).

Literature review dataset

This table lists the surveyed papers concerning the application of spatial analysis, GIS (Geographic Information Systems) as well as general geographic approaches and geostatistics, to the assessment of CoViD-19 dynamics. The period of survey is from January 1^st, 2020 to December 15^th, 2020. The first column lists the reference. The second lists the date of publication (preferably, the date of online publication). The third column lists the Country or the Countries and/or the subnational entities investigated. The fourth column lists the epidemiological data utilized in each paper. The fifth column lists other types of data utilized for the analysis. The sixth column lists the more traditionally statistically-based methods, if utilized. The seventh column lists the geo-statistical, GIS or geographic methods, if utilized. The eight column sums up the findings of each paper. The papers are also classified within seven thematic categories. The full references are available at the end of the table in alphabetical order.

This table was the basis for the realization of a comprehensive geographic literature review. It aims to be a useful tool to ease the "due-diligence" activity of all the researchers interested in the spatial analysis of the pandemic.

The reference to cite the related paper is the following:

Pranzo, A.M.R., Dai Prà, E. & Besana, A. Epidemiological geography at work: An exploratory review about the overall findings of spatial analysis applied to the study of CoViD-19 propagation along the first pandemic year. GeoJournal (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10601-y

To read the manuscript please follow this link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10601-y

Note: This LCMS CONUS Cause of Change image service has been deprecated. It has been replaced by the LCMS CONUS Annual Change image service, which provides updated and consolidated change data.Please refer to the new service here: https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=085626ec50324e5e9ad6323c050ac84dThis product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS change attribution classes for each year. See additional information about change in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS change, land cover, and land use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: change, land cover, and land use. Change relates specifically to vegetation cover and includes slow loss (not included for PRUSVI), fast loss (which also includes hydrologic changes such as inundation or desiccation), and gain. These values are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual land cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261U.S. Geological Survey. (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAZhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of land cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

This mapping tool provides a representation of the general watershed boundaries for stream systems declared fully appropriated by the State Water Board. The boundaries were created by Division of Water Rights staff by delineating FASS critical reaches and consolidating HUC 12 sub-watersheds to form FASS Watershed boundaries. As such, the boundaries are in most cases conservative with respect to the associated stream system. However, users should check neighboring FASS Watersheds to ensure the stream system of interest is not restricted by other FASS listings. For more information regarding the Declaration of Fully Appropriated Stream Systems, visit the Division of Water Rights’ Fully Appropriated Streams webpage. How to Use the Interactive Mapping Tool: If it is your first time viewing the map, you will need to click the “OK” box on the splash screen and agree to the disclaimer before continuing. Navigate to your point of interest by either using the search bar or by zooming in on the map. You may enter a stream name, street address, or watershed ID in the search bar. Click on the map to identify the location of interest and one or more pop-up boxes may appear with information about the fully appropriated stream systems within the general watershed boundaries of the identified location. The information provided in the pop-up box may include: (a) stream name, (b) tributary, (c) season declared fully appropriated, (d) Board Decisions/Water Right Orders, and/or (e) court references/adjudications. You may toggle the FAS Streams reference layer on and off to find representative critical reaches associated with the FASS Watershed layer. Please note that this layer is for general reference purposes only and ultimately the critical reach listed in Appendix A of Water Rights Order 98-08 and Appendix A together with any associated footnotes controls. Note: A separate FAS Watershed boundary layer was created for the Bay-Delta Watershed. The Bay-Delta Watershed layer should be toggled on to check if the area of interest is fully appropriated under State Water Board Decision 1594.

This dataset was updated May, 2025.This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.The current process for compiling the data sources includes:* Clipping input datasets to the California boundary* Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc)* Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California.* Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only.* Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs)* In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD* As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset. Data Sources:* GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf* US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore* Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.html Data Gaps & Changes:Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.25_1: The CPAD Input dataset was amended to merge large gaps in certain areas of the state known to be erroneous, such as Yosemite National Park, and to eliminate overlaps from the original input. The FWS input dataset was updated in February of 2025, and the DOD input dataset was updated in October of 2024. The BIA input dataset was the same as was used for the previous ownership version.24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

Introduction

Geographical scale, in terms of spatial extent, provide a basis for other branches of science. This dataset contains newly proposed geographical and geological GIS boundaries for the Pan-Tibetan Highlands (new proposed name for the High Mountain Asia), based on geological and geomorphological features. This region comprises the Tibetan Plateau and three adjacent mountain regions: the Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains and Mountains of Central Asia, and boundaries are also given for each subregion individually. The dataset will benefit quantitative spatial analysis by providing a well-defined geographical scale for other branches of research, aiding cross-disciplinary comparisons and synthesis, as well as reproducibility of research results.

The dataset comprises three subsets, and we provide three data formats (.shp, .geojson and .kmz) for each of them. Shapefile format (.shp) was generated in ArcGIS Pro, and the other two were converted from shapefile, the conversion steps refer to 'Data processing' section below. The following is a description of the three subsets:

(1) The GIS boundaries we newly defined of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands and its four constituent sub-regions, i.e. the Tibetan Plateau, Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains and the Mountains of Central Asia. All files are placed in the "Pan-Tibetan Highlands (Liu et al._2022)" folder.

(2) We also provide GIS boundaries that were applied by other studies (cited in Fig. 3 of our work) in the folder "Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountains (Others’ definitions)". If these data is used, please cite the relevent paper accrodingly. In addition, it is worthy to note that the GIS boundaries of Hengduan Mountains (Li et al. 1987a) and Mountains of Central Asia (Foggin et al. 2021) were newly generated in our study using Georeferencing toolbox in ArcGIS Pro.

(3) Geological assemblages and characters of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands, including Cratons and micro-continental blocks (Fig. S1), plus sutures, faults and thrusts (Fig. 4), are placed in the "Pan-Tibetan Highlands (geological files)" folder.

Note: High Mountain Asia: The name ‘High Mountain Asia’ is the only direct synonym of Pan-Tibetan Highlands, but this term is both grammatically awkward and somewhat misleading, and hence the term ‘Pan-Tibetan Highlands’ is here proposed to replace it. Third Pole: The first use of the term ‘Third Pole’ was in reference to the Himalaya by Kurz & Montandon (1933), but the usage was subsequently broadened to the Tibetan Plateau or the whole of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands. The mainstream scientific literature refer the ‘Third Pole’ to the region encompassing the Tibetan Plateau, Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains, Karakoram, Hindu Kush and Pamir. This definition was surpported by geological strcture (Main Pamir Thrust) in the western part, and generally overlaps with the ‘Tibetan Plateau’ sensu lato defined by some previous studies, but is more specific.

More discussion and reference about names please refer to the paper. The figures (Figs. 3, 4, S1) mentioned above were attached in the end of this document.

Data processing

We provide three data formats. Conversion of shapefile data to kmz format was done in ArcGIS Pro. We used the Layer to KML tool in Conversion Toolbox to convert the shapefile to kmz format. Conversion of shapefile data to geojson format was done in R. We read the data using the shapefile function of the raster package, and wrote it as a geojson file using the geojson_write function in the geojsonio package.

Version

Version 2022.1.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB31010000), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41971071), the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS (ZDBS-LY-7001). We are grateful to our coauthors insightful discussion and comments. We also want to thank professors Jed Kaplan, Yin An, Dai Erfu, Zhang Guoqing, Peter Cawood, Tobias Bolch and Marc Foggin for suggestions and providing GIS files.

Citation

Liu, J., Milne, R. I., Zhu, G. F., Spicer, R. A., Wambulwa, M. C., Wu, Z. Y., Li, D. Z. (2022). Name and scale matters: Clarifying the geography of Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountain regions. Global and Planetary Change, In revision

Jie Liu & Guangfu Zhu. (2022). Geographical and geological GIS boundaries of the Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountain regions (Version 2022.1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6432940

Contacts

Dr. Jie LIU: E-mail: liujie@mail.kib.ac.cn;

Mr. Guangfu ZHU: zhuguangfu@mail.kib.ac.cn

Institution: Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Address: 132# Lanhei Road, Heilongtan, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China

Copyright

This dataset is available under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

This map layer shows the boundary of fire station first-in districts in the City of Columbus. First-in districts represent the zone of first response for each Columbus fire station. They represent logical places a particular station can respond to faster than all other surrounding stations within the city of Columbus. These zones are re-evaluated and re-created, if necessary, each time a fire station is closed or opened.These polygons are also used for internal reporting purposes (number of runs, average response times...etc.)

Authority In the 1963 general session, the Utah State Legislature charged the Division of Water Resources with the responsibility of developing a State Water Plan. This plan is to coordinate and direct the activities of state and federal agencies concerned with Utah’s water resources. As a part of this objective, the Division of Water Resources collects water-related land use data for the entire state. This data includes the types and extent of irrigated crops as well as information concerning phreatophytes, wet/open water areas, dry land agriculture and urban areas. The data produced by the water-related land use program are used for various planning purposes. Some of these include: determining cropland water use, evaluating irrigated land losses and conversion to urban uses, planning for new water development, estimating irrigated acreages for any area, and developing water budgets. Additionally, the data are used by many other state and federal agencies. Previous Methods The land use inventory methods used by the division in conducting water-related land use studies have varied with regard to the procedures used and the precision obtained. During the 1960s and 70s, inventories were prepared using large format vertical-aerial photographs supplemented with field surveys to label boundaries, vegetation types, and other water use information. After identifying crops and labeling photographs, the information was transferred onto a base map and then planimetered or "dot-counted" to determine the acreage. Tables for individual townships and ranges were prepared showing the amount of land in each land use category within each section. Data were then available for use in preparing water budgets. In the early 1980s, the division began updating its methodology for collecting water-related land use data to take advantage of the rapidly growing fields of Remote Sensing and computerized Geographic Information Systems (GIS). For several years during the early 1980’s, the division contracted with the University of Utah Research Institute, Center for Remote Sensing and Cartography (CRSC), to prepare water-related land use inventories. During this period, water-related land use data was obtained by using high altitude color infrared photography and laboratory interpretation, with field checking. In March 1984, several division staff members visited the California Department of Water Resources to observe its methodology for collecting water-related land use data for state water planning purposes. Based on its review of the California methodology and its own experience, the division developed a water-related land use inventory program. This program included the use of 35mm slides, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps, field-mapping using base maps produced from the 35mm photography and a computerized GIS to process, store and retrieve land use data. Areas for survey were first identified from previous land use studies and any other available information. The identified areas were then photographed using an aircraft carrying a high quality 35mm single lens reflex camera mounted to focus along a vertical axis to the earth. Photos were taken between 6,000 and 6,500 feet above the ground using a 24mm lens. This procedure allowed each slide to cover a little more than one square mile with approximately 30 percent overlap on the wide side of the slide and 5 percent on the slide's narrow side. The slides were then indexed according to a flight-line number, slide number, latitude and longitude. All 35mm slides were stored in files at the division offices and cataloged according to township, range and section, and quadrangle map location. Water-related land use areas were then transferred from the slide to USGS 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps using a standard slide projector with a 100-200mm zoom lens. This step allowed the technician to project the slide onto the back of a quadrangle map. The image showing through the map was adjusted to the map scale with the zoom lens. Field boundaries and other water-use boundaries were then traced on the 7-1/2 minute quadrangle map. Next, a team was sent to use the map in the field to check the boundaries and current year land use field data on the 7-1/2 minute quadrangles. The final step was to digitize and process the field data using ARC/INFO software developed by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). Starting in 2000 with the land use survey of the Uintah Basin, the division further improved its land use program by using digital data for the purposes of outlining agricultural and other land cover boundaries. The division used satellite data, USGS Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs), National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP), and other digital images in a heads-up digitizing mode for this process. This allowed the division to use multiple technicians for the digitizing process. Digitizing was done as line and polygon files using ArcView 3.2 with a satellite image, DOQ or NAIP image as a background with other layers added for reference. Boundary files were created in logical groups so that the process of edge-matching along quad lines was eliminated and precision increased. Subsequent inventories were digitized in the ArcMap 9.x software versions. Present Methodology Using the latest statewide NAIP Imagery and ArcGIS 10, all boundaries of individual agricultural fields, urban areas, and significant riparian areas are precisely digitized. Once the process of boundary digitizing is done, the polygons are loaded onto tablet PCs. Field crews are then sent to field check the crop and irrigation type for each agricultural polygon and label the shapefiles accordingly. Each tablet PC is attached to a GPS unit for real-time tracking to continuously update the field crew’s location during the field labeling process. This improved process has saved the division much time and money and even greater savings will be realized as the new statewide field boundaries are completed. Once processed and quality checked, the data is filed in the State Geographic Information Database (SGID) maintained by the State Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC). Once in the SGID, the data becomes available to the public. At this point, the data is also ready for use in preparing various planning studies. In conducting water-related land use inventories, the division attempts to inventory all lands or areas that consume or evaporate water other than natural precipitation. Areas not inventoried are mainly desert, rangeland and forested areas. Wet/open water areas and dry land agriculture areas are mapped if they are within or border irrigated lands. As a result, the numbers of acres of wet/open water areas and dry land agriculture reported by the division may not represent all such areas in a basin or county. During land use inventories, the division uses 11 hydrologic basins as the basic collection units. County data is obtained from the basin data. The water-related land use data collected statewide covers more than 4.3 million acres of dry and irrigated agricultural land. This represents about 8 percent of the total land area in the state. Due to changes in methodology, improvements in imagery, and upgrades in software and hardware, increasingly more refined inventories have been made in each succeeding year of the Water-Related Land Use Inventory. While this improves the data we report, it also makes comparisons to past years difficult. Making comparisons between datasets is still useful; however, increases or decreases in acres reported should not be construed to represent definite trends or total amounts of change up or down. To estimate such trends or change, more analysis is required.

This data was prepared as input for the Selkie GIS-TE tool. This GIS tool aids site selection, logistics optimization and financial analysis of wave or tidal farms in the Irish and Welsh maritime areas. Read more here: https://www.selkie-project.eu/selkie-tools-gis-technoeconomic-model/

This research was funded by the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) through MaREI, the SFI Research Centre for Energy, Climate and the Marine and by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI). Support was also received from the European Union's European Regional Development Fund through the Ireland Wales Cooperation Programme as part of the Selkie project.

File Formats

Results are presented in three file formats:

tif Can be imported into a GIS software (such as ARC GIS) csv Human-readable text format, which can also be opened in Excel png Image files that can be viewed in standard desktop software and give a spatial view of results

Input Data

All calculations use open-source data from the Copernicus store and the open-source software Python. The Python xarray library is used to read the data.

Hourly Data from 2000 to 2019

• Wind - Copernicus ERA5 dataset 17 by 27.5 km grid
  10m wind speed

• Wave - Copernicus Atlantic -Iberian Biscay Irish - Ocean Wave Reanalysis dataset 3 by 5 km grid

Accessibility

The maximum limits for Hs and wind speed are applied when mapping the accessibility of a site.
The Accessibility layer shows the percentage of time the Hs (Atlantic -Iberian Biscay Irish - Ocean Wave Reanalysis) and wind speed (ERA5) are below these limits for the month.

Input data is 20 years of hourly wave and wind data from 2000 to 2019, partitioned by month. At each timestep, the accessibility of the site was determined by checking if
the Hs and wind speed were below their respective limits. The percentage accessibility is the number of hours within limits divided by the total number of hours for the month.

Environmental data is from the Copernicus data store (https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/). Wave hourly data is from the 'Atlantic -Iberian Biscay Irish - Ocean Wave Reanalysis' dataset.
Wind hourly data is from the ERA 5 dataset.

Availability

A device's availability to produce electricity depends on the device's reliability and the time to repair any failures. The repair time depends on weather
windows and other logistical factors (for example, the availability of repair vessels and personnel.). A 2013 study by O'Connor et al. determined the
relationship between the accessibility and availability of a wave energy device. The resulting graph (see Fig. 1 of their paper) shows the correlation between accessibility at Hs of 2m and wind speed of 15.0m/s and availability. This graph is used to calculate the availability layer from the accessibility layer.

The input value, accessibility, measures how accessible a site is for installation or operation and maintenance activities. It is the percentage time the
environmental conditions, i.e. the Hs (Atlantic -Iberian Biscay Irish - Ocean Wave Reanalysis) and wind speed (ERA5), are below operational limits.
Input data is 20 years of hourly wave and wind data from 2000 to 2019, partitioned by month. At each timestep, the accessibility of the site was determined
by checking if the Hs and wind speed were below their respective limits. The percentage accessibility is the number of hours within limits divided by the total
number of hours for the month. Once the accessibility was known, the percentage availability was calculated using the O'Connor et al. graph of the relationship between the two. A mature technology reliability was assumed.

Weather Window

The weather window availability is the percentage of possible x-duration windows where weather conditions (Hs, wind speed) are below maximum limits for the
given duration for the month.

The resolution of the wave dataset (0.05° × 0.05°) is higher than that of the wind dataset
(0.25° x 0.25°), so the nearest wind value is used for each wave data point. The weather window layer is at the resolution of the wave layer.

The first step in calculating the weather window for a particular set of inputs (Hs, wind speed and duration) is to calculate the accessibility at each timestep.
The accessibility is based on a simple boolean evaluation: are the wave and wind conditions within the required limits at the given timestep?

Once the time series of accessibility is calculated, the next step is to look for periods of sustained favourable environmental conditions, i.e. the weather
windows. Here all possible operating periods with a duration matching the required weather-window value are assessed to see if the weather conditions remain
suitable for the entire period. The percentage availability of the weather window is calculated based on the percentage of x-duration windows with suitable
weather conditions for their entire duration.The weather window availability can be considered as the probability of having the required weather window available
at any given point in the month.

Extreme Wind and Wave

The Extreme wave layers show the highest significant wave height expected to occur during the given return period. The Extreme wind layers show the highest wind speed expected to occur during the given return period.

To predict extreme values, we use Extreme Value Analysis (EVA). EVA focuses on the extreme part of the data and seeks to determine a model to fit this reduced
portion accurately. EVA consists of three main stages. The first stage is the selection of extreme values from a time series. The next step is to fit a model
that best approximates the selected extremes by determining the shape parameters for a suitable probability distribution. The model then predicts extreme values
for the selected return period. All calculations use the python pyextremes library. Two methods are used - Block Maxima and Peaks over threshold.

The Block Maxima methods selects the annual maxima and fits a GEVD probability distribution.

The peaks_over_threshold method has two variable calculation parameters. The first is the percentile above which values must be to be selected as extreme (0.9 or 0.998). The second input is the time difference between extreme values for them to be considered independent (3 days). A Generalised Pareto Distribution is fitted to the selected
extremes and used to calculate the extreme value for the selected return period.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology allows users to make maps and analyze data. Savvy educators have been using GIS since the early 1990s, but online GIS makes it easy for educators to get started quickly, even just learning on their own, online. Here is a sequenced set of resources and activities with which to begin; they start fast and easy, scaffold ideas and skills, and generally take more time and require more background as one progresses, so items should be experienced in order.

This dataset visualises the spatial distribution of the rental value in Amsterdam between 1647 and 1652. The source of rental value comes from the Verponding registration in Amsterdam. The verponding or the ‘Verpondings-quohieren van den 8sten penning’ was a tax in the Netherlands on the 8^th penny of the rental value of immovable property that had to be paid annually. In Amsterdam, the citywide verponding registration started in 1647 and continued into the early 19^th century. With the introduction of the cadastre system in 1810, the verponding came to an end.

The original tax registration is kept in the Amsterdam City Archives (Archief nr. 5044) and the four registration books transcribed in this dataset are Archief 5044, inventory 255, 273, 281, 284. The verponding was collected by districts (wijken). The tax collectors documented their collecting route by writing down the street or street-section names as they proceed. For each property, the collector wrote down the names of the owner and, if applicable, the renter (after ‘per’), and the estimated rental value of the property (in guilders). Next to the rental value was the tax charged (in guilders and stuivers). Below the owner/renter names and rental value were the records of tax payments by year.

This dataset digitises four registration books of the verponding between 1647 and 1652 in two ways. First, it transcribes the rental value of all real estate properties listed in the registrations. The names of the owners/renters are transcribed only selectively, focusing on the properties that exceeded an annual rental value of 300 guilders. These transcriptions can be found in Verponding1647-1652.csv. For a detailed introduction to the data, see Verponding1647-1652_data_introduction.txt.

Second, it geo-references the registrations based on the street names and the reconstruction of tax collectors’ travel routes in the verponding. The tax records are then plotted on the historical map of Amsterdam using the first cadaster of 1832 as a reference. Since the geo-reference is based on the street or street sections, the location of each record/house may not be the exact location but rather a close proximation of the possible locations based on the street names and the sequence of the records on the same street or street section. Therefore, this geo-referenced verponding can be used to visualise the rental value distribution in Amsterdam between 1647 and 1652. The preview below shows an extrapolation of rental values in Amsterdam. And for the geo-referenced GIS files, see Verponding_wijken.shp.

GIS specifications:

Coordination Reference System (CRS): Amersfoort/RD New (ESPG:28992)

Historical map tiles URL (From Amsterdam Time Machine)

NB: This verponding dataset is a provisional version. The georeferenced points and the name transcriptions might contain errors and need to be treated with caution.

Contributors

• Historical and archival research: Weixuan Li, Bart Reuvekamp
• Plotting of geo-referenced points: Bart Reuvekamp
• Spatial analysis: Weixuan Li
• Mapping software: QGIS
• Acknowledgements: Virtual Interiors project, Daan de Groot