This dataset contains the geographic data used to create maps for the San Diego County Regional Equity Indicators Report led by the Office of Equity and Racial Justice (OERJ). The full report can be found here: https://data.sandiegocounty.gov/stories/s/7its-kgpt

Demographic data from the report can be found here: https://data.sandiegocounty.gov/dataset/Equity-Report-Data-Demographics/q9ix-kfws

Filter by the Indicator column to select data for a particular indicator map.

Export notes: Dataset may not automatically open correctly in Excel due to geospatial data. To export the data for geospatial analysis, select Shapefile or GEOJSON as the file type. To view the data in Excel, export as a CSV but do not open the file. Then, open a blank Excel workbook, go to the Data tab, select “From Text/CSV,” and follow the prompts to import the CSV file into Excel. Alternatively, use the exploration options in "View Data" to hide the geographic column prior to exporting the data.

USER NOTES: 4/7/2025 - The maps and data have been removed for the Health Professional Shortage Areas indicator due to inconsistencies with the data source leading to some missing health professional shortage areas. We are working to fix this issue, including exploring possible alternative data sources.

5/21/2025 - The following changes were made to the 2023 report data (Equity Report Year = 2023). Self-Sufficiency Wage - a typo in the indicator name was fixed (changed sufficienct to sufficient) and the percent for one PUMA corrected from 56.9 to 59.9 (PUMA = San Diego County (Northwest)--Oceanside City & Camp Pendleton). Notes were made consistent for all rows where geography = ZCTA. A note was added to all rows where geography = PUMA. Voter registration - label "92054, 92051" was renamed to be in numerical order and is now "92051, 92054". Removed data from the percentile column because the categories are not true percentiles. Employment - Data was corrected to show the percent of the labor force that are employed (ages 16 and older). Previously, the data was the percent of the population 16 years and older that are in the labor force. 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in School - percents are now rounded to one decimal place. Poverty - the last two categories/percentiles changed because the 80th percentile cutoff was corrected by 0.01 and one ZCTA was reassigned to a different percentile as a result. Low Birthweight - the 33th percentile label was corrected to be written as the 33rd percentile. Life Expectancy - Corrected the category and percentile assignment for SRA CENTRAL SAN DIEGO. Parks and Community Spaces - corrected the category assignment for six SRAs.

5/21/2025 - Data was uploaded for Equity Report Year 2025. The following changes were made relative to the 2023 report year. Adverse Childhood Experiences - added geographic data for 2025 report. No calculation of bins nor corresponding percentiles due to small number of geographic areas. Low Birthweight - no calculation of bins nor corresponding percentiles due to small number of geographic areas.

Prepared by: Office of Evaluation, Performance, and Analytics and the Office of Equity and Racial Justice, County of San Diego, in collaboration with the San Diego Regional Policy & Innovation Center (https://www.sdrpic.org).

This dataset represents the average of the relative nutrient loss rates due to water erosion for the three nutrients total nitrogen, total phosphorus and soil organic carbon. The dataset is masked to cropping and grazing lands. The units are percentage/year. Relative nutrient loss is calculated as the annual loss of nutrient from the top 5 cm of soil relative to the total stock of each nutrient in the full depth of the soil profile. Annual erosion rate data are from Teng et al. (2016) and soil nutrient data are from the Soil and Landscape Grid of Australia. For a full description of the methods used to generate this datset see McKenzie et al. (2017).For raster data download follow link: Hillslope Erosion download To present the average relative nutrient loss rate data in Figure 4.5 in McKenzie et al. (2017), the data were divided into seven classes using percentiles as the class breaks. That is, 20 % of the grid cells fell into each of the first four classes, 10 % of the grid cells into the fifth class, and 5 % into each of the sixth and seventh classes. The actual average nutrient loss rate values which represent those class breaks are listed below:0-20th percentile: < 0.003 %/y20-40th percentile: 0.003 - 0.005 %/y40-60th percentile: 0.005 - 0.009 %/y60-80th percentile: 0.009 - 0.019 %/y80-90th percentile: 0.019 - 0.045 %/y90-95th percentile: 0.045 - 0.098 %/y95-100th percentile: > 0.098 %/yNOTE: The associated dataset is available on request to geospatial@dcceew.gov.au

Dataset from Singapore Department of Statistics. For more information, visit https://data.gov.sg/datasets/d_9834f6cdf1982e201c69c2bca45ad1c6/view

Statistical analyses and maps representing mean, high, and low water-level conditions in the surface water and groundwater of Miami-Dade County were made by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, to help inform decisions necessary for urban planning and development. Sixteen maps were created that show contours of (1) the mean of daily water levels at each site during October and May for the 2000-2009 water years; (2) the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the daily water levels at each site during October and May and for all months during 2000-2009; and (3) the differences between mean October and May water levels, as well as the differences in the percentiles of water levels for all months, between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. The 80th, 90th, and 96th percentiles of the annual maximums of daily groundwater levels during 1974-2009 (a 35-year period) were computed to provide an indication of unusually high groundwater-level conditions. These maps and statistics provide a generalized understanding of the variations of water levels in the aquifer, rather than a survey of concurrent water levels. Water-level measurements from 473 sites in Miami-Dade County and surrounding counties were analyzed to generate statistical analyses. The monitored water levels included surface-water levels in canals and wetland areas and groundwater levels in the Biscayne aquifer. Maps were created by importing site coordinates, summary water-level statistics, and completeness of record statistics into a geographic information system, and by interpolating between water levels at monitoring sites in the canals and water levels along the coastline. Raster surfaces were created from these data by using the triangular irregular network interpolation method. The raster surfaces were contoured by using geographic information system software. These contours were imprecise in some areas because the software could not fully evaluate the hydrology given available information; therefore, contours were manually modified where necessary. The ability to evaluate differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 is limited in some areas because most of the monitoring sites did not have 80 percent complete records for one or both of these periods. The quality of the analyses was limited by (1) deficiencies in spatial coverage; (2) the combination of pre- and post-construction water levels in areas where canals, levees, retention basins, detention basins, or water-control structures were installed or removed; (3) an inability to address the potential effects of the vertical hydraulic head gradient on water levels in wells of different depths; and (4) an inability to correct for the differences between daily water-level statistics. Contours are dashed in areas where the locations of contours have been approximated because of the uncertainty caused by these limitations. Although the ability of the maps to depict differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 was limited by missing data, results indicate that near the coast water levels were generally higher in May during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999; and that inland water levels were generally lower during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999. Generally, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of water levels from all months were also higher near the coast and lower inland during 2000–2009 than during 1990-1999. Mean October water levels during 2000-2009 were generally higher than during 1990-1999 in much of western Miami-Dade County, but were lower in a large part of eastern Miami-Dade County.

Description: This dataset contains layers of predicted occurrence for 65 groundfish species as well as overall species richness (i.e., the total number of species present) in Canadian Pacific waters, and the median standard error per grid cell across all species. They cover all seafloor habitat depths between 10 and 1400 m that have a mean summer salinity above 28 PSU. Two layers are provided for each species: 1) predicted species occurrence (prob_occur) and 2) the probability that a grid cell is an occurrence hotspot for that species (hotspot_prob; defined as being in the lower of: 1) 0.8, or 2) the 80th percentile of the predicted probability of occurrence values across all grid cells that had a probability of occurrence greater than 0.05.). The first measure provides an overall prediction of the distribution of the species while the second metric identifies areas where that species is most likely to be found, accounting for uncertainty within our model. All layers are provided at a 1 km resolution. Methods: These layers were developed using a species distribution model described in Thompson et al. 2023. This model integrates data from three fisheries-independent surveys: the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Groundfish Synoptic Bottom Trawl Surveys (Sinclair et al. 2003; Anderson et al. 2019), the DFO Groundfish Hard Bottom Longline Surveys (Lochead and Yamanaka 2006, 2007; Doherty et al. 2019), and the International Pacific Halibut Commission Fisheries Independent Setline Survey (IPHC 2021). Further details on the methods are found in the metadata PDF available with the dataset. Abstract from Thompson et al. 2023: Predictions of the distribution of groundfish species are needed to support ongoing marine spatial planning initiatives in Canadian Pacific waters. Data to inform species distribution models are available from several fisheries-independent surveys. However, no single survey covers the entire region and different gear types are required to survey the range of habitats that are occupied by groundfish. Bottom trawl gear is used to sample soft bottom habitat, predominantly on the continental shelf and slope, whereas longline gear often focuses on nearshore and hardbottom habitats where trawling is not possible. Because data from these two gear types are not directly comparable, previous species distribution models in this region have been limited to using data from one survey at a time, restricting their spatial extent and usefulness at a regional scale. Here we demonstrate a method for integrating presence-absence data across surveys and gear types that allows us to predict the coastwide distributions of 66 groundfish species in British Columbia. Our model leverages the use of available data from multiple surveys to estimate how species respond to environmental gradients while accounting for differences in catchability by the different surveys. Overall, we find that this integrated method has two main benefits: 1) it increases the accuracy of predictions in data-limited surveys and regions while having negligible impacts on the accuracy when data are already sufficient to make predictions, 2) it reduces uncertainty, resulting in tighter confidence intervals on predicted species occurrences. These benefits are particularly relevant in areas of our coast where our understanding of habitat suitability is limited due to a lack of spatially comprehensive long-term groundfish research surveys. Data Sources: Research data was provided by Pacific Science’s Groundfish Data Unit for research surveys from the GFBio database between 2003 and 2020 for all species which had at least 150 observations, across all gear type and survey datasets available. Uncertainties: These are modeled results based on species observations at sea and their related environmental covariate predictions that may not always accurately reflect real-world groundfish distributions though methods that integrate different data types/sources have been demonstrated to improve model inference by increasing the accuracy of the predictions and reducing uncertainty.

Description

This map represents a classification of forest types based on the influence of the edge effect (distance to the forest edge) and elevation effect (temperature and area) on tree community richness.

The edge effect influences tree diversity through an environmental aridity filter. In New Caledonia, the maximum temperature recorded at the forest edge is 41°C in February, while it never exceeds 24°C beyond 100 meters from the edge. This temperature difference induces a selection for species that tolerate the most arid conditions, leading to a reduction in the biological richness of tree communities (Ibanez et al., 2017; Birnbaum et al., 2022; Blanchard et al., 2023).

Altitude also affects tree diversity due to temperature variation and available area (Ibanez et al., 2014; Birnbaum et al., 2015; Pouteau et al., 2015; Ibanez et al., 2016; Ibanez et al., 2018). In New Caledonia, observed tree community richness ranges from 35 to 121 species per hectare within the NC-PIPPN network, peaking at mid-altitude ranges (refer to figure 'amap_elevation_richness.png'). Potential richness was assessed using the S-SDM model, with the 80th percentile used as a threshold to distinguish low and high potential richness across three elevation classes: [0 - 400m[, [400 - 900m[, and [900 - 1628m[.

The classification of forest types combines distance from the forest edge and potential richness by elevation into three major categories, as illustrated in the figure 'amap_forest_types_nc.png':

Edge Forest: Parts of the forest located less than 100 meters from the forest edge.

Mature Forest: Parts of the forest located beyond 100 meters from the edge with a lower potential richness of tree communities.

Core Forest: Parts of the forest located more than 300 meters from the edge with a higher potential richness of tree communities.

Content

The map is computed from the Forest Map of New Caledonia (v2024) and the Potential Tree Species Richness in the Forests of New Caledonia (v2024). This dataset was produced, analyzed, and verified using a combination of open-source software, including QGIS, PostgreSQL, PostGIS, Python, R, and the GDAL library, all running on Linux.

amap_forest_types_nc.png is a picture illustrating the forest type classification

amap_forest_types_nc.zip is a compressed file contains the six essential files for an ESRI-format GIS system, using the WGS84 international coordinate system, and can be uploaded to a spatial database such as PostgreSQL/PostGIS. Each row of the attribute table represents a forest type (a multi-polygon) with associated fields :

Field Type Description

type TEXT One of the three forest types ("Edge Forest", "Mature Forest", "Core forest")

area_ha NUMERIC (2 DECIMALS) Area of the multi-polygon in hectares

description TEXT Description of the three forest types

geom GEOMETRY (MULTIPOLYGON, 4326)) Geometry with datum EPSG: 4326 (WGS 84 – World Geodetic System 1984)

Limitations

We caution users that the distinction between the three classes is based on an ecological interpretation and does not reflect directly perceptible breaks in the forest. The ecological transition from the edge to the core of the forest follows multiple gradient modulated by environmental conditions.

Moreover, this classification is based on local observations and measurements, which are complex to generalize and extrapolate across a territory as environmentally diverse as New Caledonia. Nevertheless, it allows us to address the impact of fragmentation at the scale of New Caledonia.

This compilation data release is a selection of remotely sensed imagery used in the Exploring for the Future (EFTF) East Kimberley Groundwater Project. Datasets include: • Mosaic 5 m digital elevation model (DEM) with shaded relief • Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) percentiles • Tasselled Cap exceedance summaries • Normalised Difference Moisture Index (NDMI) • Normalised Difference Wetness Index (NDWI)

The 5m spatial resolution digital elevation model with associated shaded relief image were derived from the East Kimberley 2017 LiDAR survey (Geoscience Australia, 2019b).

The Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) percentiles include 20th, 50th, and 80th for dry seasons (April to October) 1987 to 2018 and were derived from the Landsat 5,7 and 8 data stored in Digital Earth Australia (see Geoscience Australia, 2019a). Tasselled Cap Exceedance Summary include brightness, greenness and wetness as a composite image and were also derived from the Landsat data. These surface reflectance products can be used to highlight vegetation characteristics such as wetness and greenness, and land cover.

The Normalised Difference Moisture Index (NDMI) and Normalised Difference Water Index (NDWI) were derived from the Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. These datasets have been classified and visually enhanced to detect vegetation moisture stress or water-logging and show distribution of moisture. For example, positive NDWI values indicate waterlogged areas while waterbodies typically correspond with values greater than 0.2. Waterlogged areas also correspond to NDMI values of 0.2 to 0.4.

Geoscience Australia, 2019a. Earth Observation Archive. Geoscience Australia, Canberra. http://dx.doi.org/10.4225/25/57D9DCA3910CD

Geoscience Australia, 2019b. Kimberley East - LiDAR data. Geoscience Australia, Canberra. C7FDA017-80B2-4F98-8147-4D3E4DF595A2 https://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/ga/129985

The purpose of the Colorado All-Lands (COAL) Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment (QWRA) for the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (R2) is to provide foundational information about wildfire hazard and risk to highly valued resources and assets across all land ownerships in the state of Colorado. Such information supports fuel management planning decisions, as well as revisions to land and resource management plans. A wildfire risk assessment is a quantitative analysis that describes how assets and resources would be potentially impacted by wildfire. The COAL analysis considers several different components, each resolved spatially across the project area, including:likelihood of a fire burning;the intensity of a fire if one should occur;the exposure of assets and resources based on their locations;the susceptibility of those assets and resources to wildfire.This dataset is called NVC flame-length probabilities because it is used to calculate the expected Net Value Change (eNVC) and conditional Net Value Change (cNVC), to estimate beneficial, neutral or negative fire effects on highly valued assets and resources, with and without burn probability respectively. This dataset includes flame lengths from flanking and backing fire as well as head fire. This dataset can be used in fuels and prescribed fire planning because it characterizes the full range of fire behavior for the modeled fire environment for a specific fire weather and wind scenario. Calculations were done using Wildfire Exposure Simulation Tool (WildEST). WildEST is a scripted geospatial process used for simulating potential fire behavior characteristics that addresses two shortcomings of current methods. The deterministic approach we use in WildEST inherently captures only head-fire spread and intensity, so we apply adjustments to head-fire intensity based on the geometry of an assumed fire spread ellipse to obtain flanking and backing fire spread. WildEST was run under the specified 70th to 80th percentile ERC weather conditions (fuel moisture content) and 10 mph winds across all representative wind directions. WildEST used national gridded historical weather data provided by gridMET. WildEST was run for COAL at 30-m resolution.For more information regarding QWRA, please refer to GTR-315: https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr315.pdf.For information about the COAL QWRA, please refer to the COAL report: https://pyrologix.com/download.

This dataset contains cloud free, low tide composite satellite images for the tropical Australia region based on 10 m resolution Sentinel 2 imagery from 2018 – 2023. This image collection was created as part of the NESP MaC 3.17 project and is intended to allow mapping of the reef features in tropical Australia.

This collection contains composite imagery for 200 Sentinel 2 tiles around the tropical Australian coast. This dataset uses two styles: 1. a true colour contrast and colour enhancement style (TrueColour) using the bands B2 (blue), B3 (green), and B4 (red) 2. a near infrared false colour style (Shallow) using the bands B5 (red edge), B8 (near infrared), and B12 (short wave infrared). These styles are useful for identifying shallow features along the coastline.

The Shallow false colour styling is optimised for viewing the first 3 m of the water column, providing an indication of water depth. This is because the different far red and near infrared bands used in this styling have limited penetration of the water column. In clear waters the maximum penetrations of each of the bands is 3-5 m for B5, 0.5 - 1 m for B8 and < 0.05 m for B12. As a result, the image changes in colour with the depth of the water with the following colours indicating the following different depths: - White, brown, bright green, red, light blue: dry land - Grey brown: damp intertidal sediment - Turquoise: 0.05 - 0.5 m of water - Blue: 0.5 - 3 m of water - Black: Deeper than 3 m In very turbid areas the visible limit will be slightly reduced.

Change log:

This dataset will be progressively improved and made available for download. These additions will be noted in this change log. 2024-07-24 - Add tiles for the Great Barrier Reef 2024-05-22 - Initial release for low-tide composites using 30th percentile (Git tag: "low_tide_composites_v1")

Methods:

The satellite image composites were created by combining multiple Sentinel 2 images using the Google Earth Engine. The core algorithm was: 1. For each Sentinel 2 tile filter the "COPERNICUS/S2_HARMONIZED" image collection by - tile ID - maximum cloud cover 0.1% - date between '2018-01-01' and '2023-12-31' - asset_size > 100000000 (remove small fragments of tiles) 2. Remove high sun-glint images (see "High sun-glint image detection" for more information). 3. Split images by "SENSING_ORBIT_NUMBER" (see "Using SENSING_ORBIT_NUMBER for a more balanced composite" for more information). 4. Iterate over all images in the split collections to predict the tide elevation for each image from the image timestamp (see "Tide prediction" for more information). 5. Remove images where tide elevation is above mean sea level to make sure no high tide images are included. 6. Select the 10 images with the lowest tide elevation. 7. Combine SENSING_ORBIT_NUMBER collections into one image collection. 8. Remove sun-glint (true colour only) and apply atmospheric correction on each image (see "Sun-glint removal and atmospheric correction" for more information). 9. Duplicate image collection to first create a composite image without cloud masking and using the 30th percentile of the images in the collection (i.e. for each pixel the 30th percentile value of all images is used). 10. Apply cloud masking to all images in the original image collection (see "Cloud Masking" for more information) and create a composite by using the 30th percentile of the images in the collection (i.e. for each pixel the 30th percentile value of all images is used). 11. Combine the two composite images (no cloud mask composite and cloud mask composite). This solves the problem of some coral cays and islands being misinterpreted as clouds and therefore creating holes in the composite image. These holes are "plugged" with the underlying composite without cloud masking. (Lawrey et al. 2022) 12. The final composite was exported as cloud optimized 8 bit GeoTIFF

Note: The following tiles were generated with different settings as they did not have enough images to create a composite with the standard settings: - 51KWA: no high sun-glint filter - 54LXP: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 54LXP: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 54LYK: maximum cloud cover set to 2% - 54LYM: maximum cloud cover set to 5% - 54LYN: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 54LYQ: maximum cloud cover set to 5% - 54LYP: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 54LZL: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 54LZM: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 54LZN: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 54LZQ: maximum cloud cover set to 5% - 54LZP: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 55LBD: maximum cloud cover set to 2% - 55LBE: maximum cloud cover set to 1% - 55LCC: maximum cloud cover set to 5% - 55LCD: maximum cloud cover set to 1%

High sun-glint image detection:

Images with high sun-glint can lead to lower quality composite images. To determine high sun-glint images, a mask is created for all pixels above a high reflectance threshold for the near-infrared and short-wave infrared bands. Then the proportion of this is calculated and compared against a sun-glint threshold. If the image exceeds this threshold, it is filtered out of the image collection. As we are only interested in the sun-glint on water pixels, a water mask is created using NDWI before creating the sun-glint mask.

Sun-glint removal and atmospheric correction:

Sun-glint was removed from the images using the infrared B8 band to estimate the reflection off the water from the sun-glint. B8 penetrates water less than 0.5 m and so in water areas it only detects reflections off the surface of the water. The sun-glint detected by B8 correlates very highly with the sun-glint experienced by the visible channels (B2, B3 and B4) and so the sun-glint in these channels can be removed by subtracting B8 from these channels.

Eric Lawrey developed this algorithm by fine tuning the value of the scaling between the B8 channel and each individual visible channel (B2, B3 and B4) so that the maximum level of sun-glint would be removed. This work was based on a representative set of images, trying to determine a set of values that represent a good compromise across different water surface conditions.

This algorithm is an adjustment of the algorithm already used in Lawrey et al. 2022

Tide prediction:

To determine the tide elevation in a specific satellite image, we used a tide prediction model to predict the tide elevation for the image timestamp. After investigating and comparing a number of models, it was decided to use the empirical ocean tide model EOT20 (Hart-Davis et al., 2021). The model data can be freely accessed at https://doi.org/10.17882/79489 and works with the Python library pyTMD (https://github.com/tsutterley/pyTMD). In our comparison we found this model was able to predict accurately the tide elevation across multiple points along the study coastline when compared to historic Bureau of Meteorolgy and AusTide data. To determine the tide elevation of the satellite images we manually created a point dataset where we placed a central point on the water for each Sentinel tile in the study area . We used these points as centroids in the ocean models and calculated the tide elevation from the image timestamp.

Using "SENSING_ORBIT_NUMBER" for a more balanced composite:

Some of the Sentinel 2 tiles are made up of different sections depending on the "SENSING_ORBIT_NUMBER". For example, a tile could have a small triangle on the left side and a bigger section on the right side. If we filter an image collection and use a subset to create a composite, we could end up with a high number of images for one section (e.g. the left side triangle) and only few images for the other section(s). This would result in a composite image with a balanced section and other sections with a very low input. To avoid this issue, the initial unfiltered image collection is divided into multiple image collections by using the image property "SENSING_ORBIT_NUMBER". The filtering and limiting (max number of images in collection) is then performed on each "SENSING_ORBIT_NUMBER" image collection and finally, they are combined back into one image collection to generate the final composite.

Cloud Masking:

Each image was processed to mask out clouds and their shadows before creating the composite image. The cloud masking uses the COPERNICUS/S2_CLOUD_PROBABILITY dataset developed by SentinelHub (Google, n.d.; Zupanc, 2017). The mask includes the cloud areas, plus a mask to remove cloud shadows. The cloud shadows were estimated by projecting the cloud mask in the direction opposite the angle to the sun. The shadow distance was estimated in two parts.

A low cloud mask was created based on the assumption that small clouds have a small shadow distance. These were detected using a 35% cloud probability threshold. These were projected over 400 m, followed by a 150 m buffer to expand the final mask.

A high cloud mask was created to cover longer shadows created by taller, larger clouds. These clouds were detected based on an 80% cloud probability threshold, followed by an erosion and dilation of 300 m to remove small clouds. These were then projected over a 1.5 km distance followed by a 300 m buffer.

The parameters for the cloud masking (probability threshold, projection distance and buffer radius) were determined through trial and error on a small number of scenes. As such there are probably significant potential improvements that could be made to this algorithm.

Erosion, dilation and buffer operations were performed at a lower image resolution than the native satellite image resolution to improve the computational speed. The resolution of these operations was adjusted so that they were performed with approximately a 4 pixel resolution during these operations. This made the cloud mask significantly more spatially coarse than the 10 m Sentinel imagery. This resolution was chosen as a trade-off between the coarseness of the mask verse the processing time for these

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryNote: This layer is symbolized to display the percentile distribution of the Limited Resources Sub-Index. However, it includes all data for each indicator and sub-index within the citywide census tracts TEPI.What is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.