NOTICE TO PROVISIONAL 2023 LAND USE DATA USERS: Please note that on December 6, 2024 the Department of Water Resources (DWR) published the Provisional 2023 Statewide Crop Mapping dataset. The link for the shapefile format of the data mistakenly linked to the wrong dataset. The link was updated with the appropriate data on January 27, 2025. If you downloaded the Provisional 2023 Statewide Crop Mapping dataset in shapefile format between December 6, 2024 and January 27, we encourage you to redownload the data. The Map Service and Geodatabase formats were correct as posted on December 06, 2024.

Thank you for your interest in DWR land use datasets.

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has been collecting land use data throughout the state and using it to develop agricultural water use estimates for statewide and regional planning purposes, including water use projections, water use efficiency evaluations, groundwater model developments, climate change mitigation and adaptations, and water transfers. These data are essential for regional analysis and decision making, which has become increasingly important as DWR and other state agencies seek to address resource management issues, regulatory compliances, environmental impacts, ecosystem services, urban and economic development, and other issues. Increased availability of digital satellite imagery, aerial photography, and new analytical tools make remote sensing-based land use surveys possible at a field scale that is comparable to that of DWR’s historical on the ground field surveys. Current technologies allow accurate large-scale crop and land use identifications to be performed at desired time increments and make possible more frequent and comprehensive statewide land use information. Responding to this need, DWR sought expertise and support for identifying crop types and other land uses and quantifying crop acreages statewide using remotely sensed imagery and associated analytical techniques. Currently, Statewide Crop Maps are available for the Water Years 2014, 2016, 2018- 2022 and PROVISIONALLY for 2023.

Historic County Land Use Surveys spanning 1986 - 2015 may also be accessed using the CADWR Land Use Data Viewer: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer.

For Regional Land Use Surveys follow: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/region-land-use-surveys.

For County Land Use Surveys follow: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/county-land-use-surveys.

For a collection of ArcGIS Web Applications that provide information on the DWR Land Use Program and our data products in various formats, visit the DWR Land Use Gallery: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/dd14ceff7d754e85ab9c7ec84fb8790a.

Recommended citation for DWR land use data: California Department of Water Resources. (Water Year for the data). Statewide Crop Mapping—California Natural Resources Agency Open Data. Retrieved “Month Day, YEAR,” from https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/statewide-crop-mapping.

Historic land uses on lots that were vacant, privately owned, and zoned for manufacturing in 2009. Information came from a review of several years of historical Sanborn maps over the past 100 years. When the SPEED 1.0 mapping application was created in 2009, OER had its vendor examine historic land use maps on vacant, privately-owned, industrially-zoned tax lots. Up to seven years of maps for each lot were examined, and information was recorded that indicated industrial uses or potential environmental contamination such as historic fill. Data for an additional 139 lots requested by community-based organizations was added in 2014. Each record represents the information from a map from a particular year on a particular tax lot at that time. Limitations of funding determined the number of lots included and entailed that not all years were examined for each lot.

A set of three estimates of land-cover types and annual transformations of land use are provided on a global 0.5 x0.5 degree lat/lon grid at annual time steps. The longest of the three estimates spans 1770-2010. The dataset presented here takes into account land-cover change due to four major land-use/management activities: (1) cropland expansion and abandonment, (2) pastureland expansion and abandonment, (3) urbanization, and (4) secondary forest regrowth due to wood harvest. Due to uncertainties associated with estimating historical agricultural (crops and pastures) land use, the study uses three widely accepted global reconstruction of cropland and pastureland in combination with common wood harvest and urban land data set to provide three distinct estimates of historical land-cover change and underlying land-use conversions. Hence, these distinct historical reconstructions offer a wide range of plausible regional estimates of uncertainty and extent to which different ecosystem have undergone changes. The three estimates use a consistent methodology, and start with a common land-cover map during pre-industrial conditions (year 1765), taking different courses as determined by the land-use/management datasets (cropland, pastureland, urbanization and wood harvest) to attain forest area distributions close to satellite estimates of forests for contemporary period. The satellite based estimates of forest area are based on MODIS sensor. All data uses the WGS84 spatial coordinate system for mapping.

description: This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer; abstract: This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer

The statewide dataset contains a combination of land cover mapping from 2016 aerial imagery and land use derived from standardized assessor parcel information for Massachusetts. The data layer is the result of a cooperative project between MassGIS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Coastal Management (OCM). Funding was provided by the Mass. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

This land cover/land use dataset does not conform to the classification schemes or polygon delineation of previous land use data from MassGIS (1951-1999; 2005).In this map service layer hosted at MassGIS' ArcGIS Server, all impervious polygons are symbolized by their generalized use code; all non-impervious land cover polygons are symbolized by their land cover category. The idea behind this method is to use both cover and use codes to provide a truer picture of how land is being used: parcel use codes may indicate allowed or assessed, not actual use; land cover alone (especially impervious) does not indicate actual use.

See the full datalayer description for more details.This map service is best displayed at large (zoomed in) scales. Also available are a Feature Service and a Tile Service (cache). The tile cache will display very quickly in in ArcGIS Online, ArcGIS Desktop, and other applications that can consume tile services.

This is collection of DWR County Land Use Surveys. You may scroll the list below to download any individual survey of interest. Historic County Land Use Surveys spanning 1986 - 2015 may also be accessed using the CADWR Land Use Data Viewer. For Statewide Crop Mapping follow the link below : https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/statewide-crop-mapping For Region Land Use Surveys follow link below: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/region-land-use-surveys Questions about the survey data may be directed to Landuse@water.ca.gov.

This data layer is an element of the Oregon GIS Framework and has been clipped to the Oregon boundary and reprojected to Oregon Lambert (2992). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in partnership with several federal agencies, has developed and released four National Land Cover Database (NLCD) products over the past two decades: NLCD 1992, 2001, 2006, and 2011. These products provide spatially explicit and reliable information on the Nation’s land cover and land cover change. To continue the legacy of NLCD and further establish a long-term monitoring capability for the Nation’s land resources, the USGS has designed a new generation of NLCD products named NLCD 2016. The NLCD 2016 design aims to provide innovative, consistent, and robust methodologies for production of a multi-temporal land cover and land cover change database from 2001 to 2016 at 2–3-year intervals. Comprehensive research was conducted and resulted in developed strategies for NLCD 2016: a streamlined process for assembling and preprocessing Landsat imagery and geospatial ancillary datasets; a multi-source integrated training data development and decision-tree based land cover classifications; a temporally, spectrally, and spatially integrated land cover change analysis strategy; a hierarchical theme-based post-classification and integration protocol for generating land cover and change products; a continuous fields biophysical parameters modeling method; and an automated scripted operational system for the NLCD 2016 production. The performance of the developed strategies and methods were tested in twenty World Reference System-2 path/row throughout the conterminous U.S. An overall agreement ranging from 71% to 97% between land cover classification and reference data was achieved for all tested area and all years. Results from this study confirm the robustness of this comprehensive and highly automated procedure for NLCD 2016 operational mapping. Questions about the NLCD 2016 land cover product can be directed to the NLCD 2016 land cover mapping team at USGS EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov. See included spatial metadata for more details.

If you want to use this data, please cite our article:Xiong, S., Zhang, X., Lei, Y., Tan, G., Wang, H., & Du, S. (2024). Time-series China urban land use mapping (2016–2022): An approach for achieving spatial-consistency and semantic-transition rationality in temporal domain. Remote Sensing of Environment, 312, 114344.The global urbanization trend is geographically manifested through city expansion and the renewal of internal urban structures and functions. Time-series urban land use (ULU) maps are vital for capturing dynamic land changes in the urbanization process, giving valuable insights into urban development and its environmental consequences. Recent studies have mapped ULU in some cities with a unified model, but ignored the regional differences among cities; and they generated ULU maps year by year, but ignored temporal correlations between years; thus, they could be weak in large-scale and long time-series ULU monitoring. Accordingly, we introduce an temporal-spatial-semantic collaborative (TSS) mapping framework to generating accurate ULU maps with considering regional differences and temporal correlations. Firstly, to support model training, a large-scale ULU sample dataset based on OpenStreetMap (OSM) and Sentinel-2 imagery is automatically constructed, providing a total number of 56,412 samples with a size of 512 × 512 which are divided into six sub-regions in China and used for training different classification models. Then, an urban land use mapping network (ULUNet) is proposed to recognize ULU. This model utilizes a primary and an auxiliary encoder to process noisy OSM samples and can enhance the model's robustness under noisy labels. Finally, taking the temporal correlations of ULU into consideration, the recognized ULU are optimized, whose boundaries are unified by a time-series co-segmentation, and whose categories are modified by a knowledge-data driven method. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, we consider all urban areas in China (254,566 km2), and produce a time-series China urban land use dataset (CULU) at a 10-m resolution, spanning from 2016 to 2022, with an overall accuracy of CULU is 82.42%. Through comparison, it can be found that CULU outperforms existing datasets such as EULUC-China and UFZ-31cities in data accuracies, spatial boundaries consistencies and land use transitions logicality. The results indicate that the proposed method and generated dataset can play important roles in land use change monitoring, ecological-environmental evolution analysis, and also sustainable city development.

Sentinel2GlobalLULC is a deep learning-ready dataset of RGB images from the Sentinel-2 satellites designed for global land use and land cover (LULC) mapping. Sentinel2GlobalLULC v2.1 contains 194,877 images in GeoTiff and JPEG format corresponding to 29 broad LULC classes. Each image has 224 x 224 pixels at 10 m spatial resolution and was produced by assigning the 25th percentile of all available observations in the Sentinel-2 collection between June 2015 and October 2020 in order to remove atmospheric effects (i.e., clouds, aerosols, shadows, snow, etc.). A spatial purity value was assigned to each image based on the consensus across 15 different global LULC products available in Google Earth Engine (GEE).

Our dataset is structured into 3 main zip-compressed folders, an Excel file with a dictionary for class names and descriptive statistics per LULC class, and a python script to convert RGB GeoTiff images into JPEG format. The first folder called "Sentinel2LULC_GeoTiff.zip" contains 29 zip-compressed subfolders where each one corresponds to a specific LULC class with hundreds to thousands of GeoTiff Sentinel-2 RGB images. The second folder called "Sentinel2LULC_JPEG.zip" contains 29 zip-compressed subfolders with a JPEG formatted version of the same images provided in the first main folder. The third folder called "Sentinel2LULC_CSV.zip" includes 29 zip-compressed CSV files with as many rows as provided images and with 12 columns containing the following metadata (this same metadata is provided in the image filenames):

• Land Cover Class ID: is the identification number of each LULC class
• Land Cover Class Short Name: is the short name of each LULC class
• Image ID: is the identification number of each image within its corresponding LULC class
• Pixel purity Value: is the spatial purity of each pixel for its corresponding LULC class calculated as the spatial consensus across up to 15 land-cover products
• GHM Value: is the spatial average of the Global Human Modification index (gHM) for each image
• Latitude: is the latitude of the center point of each image
• Longitude: is the longitude of the center point of each image
• Country Code: is the Alpha-2 country code of each image as described in the ISO 3166 international standard. To understand the country codes, we recommend the user to visit the following website where they present the Alpha-2 code for each country as described in the ISO 3166 international standard:https: //www.iban.com/country-codes
• Administrative Department Level1: is the administrative level 1 name to which each image belongs
• Administrative Department Level2: is the administrative level 2 name to which each image belongs
• Locality: is the name of the locality to which each image belongs
• Number of S2 images : is the number of found instances in the corresponding Sentinel-2 image collection between June 2015 and October 2020, when compositing and exporting its corresponding image tile

For seven LULC classes, we could not export from GEE all images that fulfilled a spatial purity of 100% since there were millions of them. In this case, we exported a stratified random sample of 14,000 images and provided an additional CSV file with the images actually contained in our dataset. That is, for these seven LULC classes, we provide these 2 CSV files:

• A CSV file that contains all exported images for this class
• A CSV file that contains all images available for this class at spatial purity of 100%, both the ones exported and the ones not exported, in case the user wants to export them. These CSV filenames end with "including_non_downloaded_images".

To clearly state the geographical coverage of images available in this dataset, we included in the version v2.1, a compressed folder called "Geographic_Representativeness.zip". This zip-compressed folder contains a csv file for each LULC class that provides the complete list of countries represented in that class. Each csv file has two columns, the first one gives the country code and the second one gives the number of images provided in that country for that LULC class. In addition to these 29 csv files, we provided another csv file that maps each ISO Alpha-2 country code to its original full country name.

© Sentinel2GlobalLULC Dataset by Yassir Benhammou, Domingo Alcaraz-Segura, Emilio Guirado, Rohaifa Khaldi, Boujemâa Achchab, Francisco Herrera & Siham Tabik is marked with Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0)

This dataset (2017-2023) is a compilation of the Land Use/Land Cover datasets created by the 5 Water Management Districts in Florida based on imagery -- Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) 2022.Bay (1/4/2022 – 3/24/2022), Calhoun (1/7/2022 – 1/18/2022),Escambia (11/13/2021 – 1/15/2021), Franklin (1/7/2022 – 1/18/2022), Gadsden (1/7/2022 – 1/16/2022), Gulf (1/7/2022 – 1/14/2022), Holmes (1/8/2022 – 1/18/2022), Jackson (1/7/2022 – 1/14/2022), Jefferson (1/7/2022 – 2/16/2022), Leon (February 2022), Liberty (1/7/2022 – 1/16/2022), Okaloosa (10/31/2021 – 2/13/2022), Santa Rosa (10/26/2021-1/17/2022), Wakulla (1/7/2022 – 1/14/2022), Walton (1/7/2022-1/14/2022), Washington (1/13/2022 – 1/19/2022).Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) 2019-2023.(Alachua 20200102-20200106), (Baker 20200108-20200126), (Bradford 20181020-20190128), (Columbia 20181213-20190106), (Gilchrist 20181020-20190128), (Levy 20181020-20190128), (Suwannee 20181217-20190116), (Union 20181020-20190128).(Dixie 12/17/2021-01/29/2022), (Hamilton 12/17/2021-01/29/2022), (Jefferson 01/07/2022-02/16/2022), (Lafayette 12/17/2021-01/29/2022), (Madison 12/17/2021-01/29/2022), (Taylor 12/17/2021-01/29/2022.Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) 2020. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) 2021-2023.St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) 2020.Year Flight Season Counties:2020 (Dec. 2019 - Mar 2020) Alachua, Baker, Clay, Flagler, Lake, Marion, Osceola, Polk, Putnam.2021 (Dec. 2020 - Mar 2021) Brevard, Indian River, Nassau, Okeechobee, Orange, St. Johns, Seminole, Volusia. 2022 (Dec. 2021 - Mar 2022) Bradford, Union. Codes are derived from the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS-DOT 1999) but may have been altered to accommodate region differences by each of the Water Management Districts.

This dataset represents a high resolution urban land cover classification map across the southern California Air Basin (SoCAB) with a spatial resolution of 60 cm in urban regions and 10 m in non-urban regions. This map was developed to support NASA JPL-based urban biospheric CO2 modeling in Los Angeles, CA. Land cover classification was derived from a novel fusion of Sentinel-2 (10-60 m x 10-60 m) and 2016 NAIP (60 cm x 60 cm) imagery and provides identification of impervious surface, non-photosynthetic vegetation, shrub, tree, grass, pools and lakes.

Land Cover Classes in .tif file: 0: Impervious surface 1: Tree (mixed evergreen/deciduous) 2: Grass (assumed irrigated) 3: Shrub 4: Non-photosynthetic vegetation 5: Water (masked using MNDWI/NDWI)

Google Earth Engine interactive app displaying this map: https://wcoleman.users.earthengine.app/view/socab-irrigated-classification

A portion of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Support from the Earth Science Division OCO-2 program is acknowledged. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved.

The Chesapeake Bay Land Use and Land Cover Database (LULC) facilitates characterization of the landscape and land change for and between discrete time periods. The database was developed by the University of Vermont’s Spatial Analysis Laboratory in cooperation with Chesapeake Conservancy (CC) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of a 6-year Cooperative Agreement between Chesapeake Conservancy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a separate Interagency Agreement between the USGS and EPA to provide geospatial support to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The database contains one-meter 13-class Land Cover (LC) and 54-class Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) for all counties within or adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay watershed for 2013/14 and 2017/18, depending on availability of National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for each state. Additionally, 54 LULC classes are generalized into 18 LULC classes for ease of visualization and communication of LULC trends ...

This data set provides land cover and land use(LCLU) classification product at 30-m spatial resolution for Puerto Rico in 2010. The LCLU data was derived from Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) and Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) Phased Array L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR) data around the year of 2010. The ground reference data were acquired by historical LCLU map, field trip surveys, and visual interpretation of high spatial resolution imagery from Google Earth and aerial photos. The classification model was created with Random Forest classifier. The data was produced by the Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras. Please participate in the data usage survey and give some suggestion (https://goo.gl/forms/JshGAXNoqSO3NNxw1), so that we can improve the data.

Abstract

This dataset and its metadata statement were supplied to the Bioregional Assessment Programme by a third party and are presented here as originally supplied.

This dataset is a complete state-wide digital land use map of Queensland. The dataset is a product of the Queensland Land Use Mapping Program (QLUMP) and was produced by the Queensland Government. It presents the most current mapping of land use features for Queensland, including the land use mapping products from 1999, 2006 and 2009, in a single feature layer. This dataset was last updated July 2012. See additional information also.

Purpose

Indicates the current primary use or management objective of the land.

Dataset History

Source DataQueensland Government - Land use mapping (1999); Landsat TM and ETM imagery; Spot5 imagery; High resolution ortho photography through the Spatial Imagery Subscription Plan (SISP); Queensland Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) (2009), Queensland Valuation and Sales Database (QVAS) (2009); Queensland Nature Refuges (2009); Queensland Estates (2009); Queensland Herbarium's Regional Ecosystem, Water Body and Wetlands datasets (2009); Statewide Landcover & Trees Study (SLATS) Queensland Dams and Waterbodies (2009) and land cover change data; scanned aerial photography (1999-2009).Additional verbal & written information on land uses & their locations was obtained from regional Queensland Government officers, Local Government Authorities, land owners & managers, private industry as well as from field observations & checking.Data captureA range of existing digital datasets containing land use information was collated from the Queensland Government spatial data inventory and prepared for use in a GIS using ArcGIS and ERDAS Imagine software.Processing steps To compile the 1999 baseline mapping, datasets containing baseline land cover (supplied by SLATS), Protected Areas, State Forest and Timber Reserves, plantations, coastal wetlands, reserves (from DCDB) and logged forests were interpreted in a spatial model to produce a preliminary land use raster image.The model incorporated a decision matrix which assigned each pixel a specific land use class according to a set of pre-determined rules.Individual catchments were clipped from the model output and enhanced with additional land use information interpreted primarily from Landsat TM and ETM imagery as well as scanned and hardcopy aerial photography (where available). The DCDB and other datasets containing land use information were used to help identify property and land use type boundaries. This process produced a draft land use raster.Verification of the draft land use dataset, particularly those with significant areas of intensive land uses, was undertaken by comparing mapped land use classes with observed land use classes in the field where possible. The final raster image was converted to a vector coverage in ARC/Info and GIS editing performed.The existing 1999 baseline (or later where available) land use dataset (vector) formed the basis for the 2006 and 2009 land use mapping. The 2006 & 2009 datasets were then updated primarily by interpretation of SPOT5 imagery, high-res orthophotography, scanned aerial photography and inclusion of expert local knowledge. This was performed in an ESRI ArcSDE geodatabase replication infrastructure, across some nine regional offices. The DCDB, QVAS, Estates, Queensland Herbarium wetlands and SLATS land cover change and waterbody datasets were used to assist in identification and delineation of property and land use type boundaries. Digitised areas of uniform land use type were assigned to land use classes according to ALUMC Version 7 (May 2010).This "current" land use mapping product presents a complete state-wide land use map of Queensland, after collating the most current land use datasets within a single mapping layer.An independent validation was undertaken to assess thematic (attribute) accuracy under the ALUM classification. Please refer to the orignal source data for the validation results.

Dataset Citation

Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (2013) Bioregional_Assessment_Programme_Land use mapping - Queensland current. Bioregional Assessment Source Dataset. Viewed 21 December 2017, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/740d257f-b622-49c2-9745-be283239add3.

The Land Cover dataset demarcates 14 land cover types by area; such as Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Forest, Agriculture, etc. If viewing this description on the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center’s open data portal (http://www.wprdc.org), this dataset is harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal (http://openac.alcogis.opendata.arcgis.com/). The full metadata record for this dataset can also be found on Allegheny County’s GIS portal. You can access the metadata record and other resources on the GIS portal by clicking on the “Explore” button (and choosing the “Go to resource” option) to the right of the “ArcGIS Open Dataset” text below. Category: Geography Organization: Allegheny County Department: Geographic Information Systems Group; Department of Administrative Services Temporal Coverage: 1994 Data Notes: Coordinate System: Pennsylvania State Plane South Zone 3702; U.S. Survey Foot Development Notes: The dataset was created by Chester Environmental through combined image processing and GIS analysis of Landsat TM imagery of October 2, 1992, existing aerial photography, hardcopy and digital mapping sources and Census Bureau demographic data. The original dataset was created in 1993, then updated by Chester in 1994. Other: none Related Document(s): Data Dictionary (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VfUflfki42mpLSkr1R-up_OXGD3mHnv8tqeXf6XS9O0/edit?usp=sharing) Frequency - Data Change: As needed Frequency - Publishing: As needed Data Steward Name: Eli Thomas Data Steward Email: gishelp@alleghenycounty.us

This dataset depicts land use across South Australia according to the Australian Land Use and Management (ALUM) Classification Version 8 aggregated from surveys in 2008, 2014 and 2016. It forms part of the Australian Collaborative Land Use and Management Program (ACLUMP) land use mapping. The dataset is a combination of land use data mapped over recent years. The data were derived from an initial desktop interpretation of aerial imagery followed by an on-ground field survey. This dataset will be updated when any new land use mapping is undertaken in a part of SA.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in partnership with several federal agencies, has developed and released five National Land Cover Database (NLCD) products over the past two decades: NLCD 1992, 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016. The 2016 release saw landcover created for additional years of 2003, 2008, and 2013. These products provide spatially explicit and reliable information on the Nation’s land cover and land cover change. To continue the legacy of NLCD and further establish a long-term monitoring capability for the Nation’s land resources, the USGS has designed a new generation of NLCD products named NLCD 2019. The NLCD 2019 design aims to provide innovative, consistent, and robust methodologies for production of a multi-temporal land cover and land cover change database from 2001 to 2019 at 2–3-year intervals. Comprehensive research was conducted and resulted in developed strategies for NLCD 2019: continued integration between impervious surface and all landcover products with impervious surface being directly mapped as developed classes in the landcover, a streamlined compositing process for assembling and preprocessing based on Landsat imagery and geospatial ancillary datasets; a multi-source integrated training data development and decision-tree based land cover classifications; a temporally, spectrally, and spatially integrated land cover change analysis strategy; a hierarchical theme-based post-classification and integration protocol for generating land cover and change products; a continuous fields biophysical parameters modeling method; and an automated scripted operational system for the NLCD 2019 production. The performance of the developed strategies and methods were tested in twenty composite referenced areas throughout the conterminous U.S. An overall accuracy assessment from the 2016 publication give a 91% overall landcover accuracy, with the developed classes also showing a 91% accuracy in overall developed. Results from this study confirm the robustness of this comprehensive and highly automated procedure for NLCD 2019 operational mapping. Questions about the NLCD 2019 land cover product can be directed to the NLCD 2019 land cover mapping team at USGS EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov. See included spatial metadata for more details.

A 6-in resolution 8-class land cover dataset derived from the 2017 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data capture. This dataset was developed as part of an updated urban tree canopy assessment and therefore represents a ''top-down" mapping perspective in which tree canopy overhanging features is assigned to the tree canopy class. The eight land cover classes mapped were: (1) Tree Canopy, (2) Grass\Shrubs, (3) Bare Soil, (4) Water, (5) Buildings, (6) Roads, (7) Other Impervious, and (8) Railroads. The primary sources used to derive this land cover layer were 2017 LiDAR (1-ft post spacing) and 2016 4-band orthoimagery (0.5-ft resolution). Object based image analysis was used to automate land-cover features using LiDAR point clouds and derivatives, orthoimagery, and vector GIS datasets -- City Boundary (2017, NYC DoITT) Buildings (2017, NYC DoITT) Hydrography (2014, NYC DoITT) LiDAR Hydro Breaklines (2017, NYC DoITT) Transportation Structures (2014, NYC DoITT) Roadbed (2014, NYC DoITT) Road Centerlines (2014, NYC DoITT) Railroads (2014, NYC DoITT) Green Roofs (date unknown, NYC Parks) Parking Lots (2014, NYC DoITT) Parks (2016, NYC Parks) Sidewalks (2014, NYC DoITT) Synthetic Turf (2018, NYC Parks) Wetlands (2014, NYC Parks) Shoreline (2014, NYC DoITT) Plazas (2014, NYC DoITT) Utility Poles (2014, ConEdison via NYCEM) Athletic Facilities (2017, NYC Parks) For the purposes of classification, only vegetation > 8 ft were classed as Tree Canopy. Vegetation below 8 ft was classed as Grass/Shrub. To learn more about this dataset, visit the interactive "Understanding the 2017 New York City LiDAR Capture" Story Map -- https://maps.nyc.gov/lidar/2017/ Please see the following link for additional documentation on this dataset -- https://github.com/CityOfNewYork/nyc-geo-metadata/blob/master/Metadata/Metadata_LandCover.md

We (Intelligent Mining and Analysis of Remote Sensing big data, IMARS) create a large-scale annotated dataset (Globe230k) for land use/land cover (LULC) mapping, which is annotated on Google Earth image of 1 m spatial resolution. Globe230k is annotated by numerous experts and students major in survey and mapping after necessary training, through visual interpretation on very high-resolution images, as well as in-situ field survey, under the guidance of the organized annotation pipeline. Globe230k has three superiorities:

1) Large scale: the Globe230k includes 232,819 annotated images with the size of 512x512 and spatial resolution of 1 m, with more than 3x1010 annotated pixels, and it includes 10 first-level categories.

2) Rich diversity: the annotated images are sampled from worldwide regions, with coverage area of over 60,000 km2, indicating a high variability and diversity. Besides, in order to ensure the category balance, we intentionally give more chance to the rare categories to be sampled, such as wetland, ice/snow, etc.

3) Multi-modal: Globe230k not only contains RGB bands, but also include other important features for Earth system research, such as Normalized differential vegetation index (NDVI), digital elevation model (DEM), vertical-vertical polarization (VV) bands, vertical-horizontal polarization (VH) bands, which can facilitate the multi-modal data fusion research. Due to the large size of the multi-modal dataset (DEM 1.91G, NDVI 164G, VVVH 372G), these dataset are stored on Baidu Yunpan, the download link is :https://pan.baidu.com/s/12AKbiqOXSf4fnm7mYkCE0g?pwd=230k, the extraction code is 230k.

The image patches and their corresponding annotated patches are respectively stored in "image_patch.zip" and "label_patch.zip" file. The RGB image is in forms of ".jpg", with size of 512x512, the pixel value is ranged from 0-255. The annotated patches is in forms of ".png", also with size of 512x512, the pixel value is ranged from 1-10, which respectively represent 1#cropland, 2#forest, 3#grass, 4#shrubland, 5#wetland, 6#water, 7#tundra, 8#impervious, 9#bareland, 10#ice/snow. The corresponding DEM, NDVI and VVVH patches are all in form of ".tif", with size of 512x512 (due to the different resolution of DEM, NDVI and VVVH patches, they are all uniformly resized to the same scale as the image patch).

The total 232,819 pairs are officially divided into training set, validation set, and test set, based on ratio of 7:1:2, which can be find in "train_num.txt","val_num.txt","test_num.txt" file. Based on this division, the official baseline accuracy of several state-of-the-art semantic segmentation can be found in the related arcticle (https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/remotesensing.0078).

We hope it can be used as a benchmark to promote further development of global land cover mapping and semantic segmentation algorithm development.

Introduction and Rationale: Due to our increasing understanding of the role the surrounding landscape plays in ecological processes, a detailed characterization of land cover, including both agricultural and natural habitats, is ever more important for both researchers and conservation practitioners. Unfortunately, in the United States, different types of land cover data are split across thematic datasets that emphasize agricultural or natural vegetation, but not both. To address this data gap and reduce duplicative efforts in geospatial processing, we merged two major datasets, the LANDFIRE National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL), to produce an integrated land cover map. Our workflow leveraged strengths of the NVC and the CDL to produce detailed rasters comprising both agricultural and natural land-cover classes. We generated these maps for each year from 2012-2021 for the conterminous United States, quantified agreement between input layers and accuracy of our merged product, and published the complete workflow necessary to update these data. In our validation analyses, we found that approximately 5.5% of NVC agricultural pixels conflicted with the CDL, but we resolved a majority of these conflicts based on surrounding agricultural land, leaving only 0.6% of agricultural pixels unresolved in our merged product. Contents: Spatial data Attribute table for merged rasters Technical validation data Number and proportion of mismatched pixels Number and proportion of unresolved pixels Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Attribute table for merged rasters. File Name: CombinedRasterAttributeTable_CDLNVC.csvResource Description: Raster attribute table for merged raster product. Class names and recommended color map were taken from USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer and LANDFIRE National Vegetation Classification. Class values are also identical to source data, except classes from the CDL are now negative values to avoid overlapping NVC values. Resource Title: Number and proportion of mismatched pixels. File Name: pixel_mismatch_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Number and proportion of pixels that were mismatched between the Cropland Data Layer and National Vegetation Classification, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States.Resource Title: Number and proportion of unresolved pixels. File Name: unresolved_conflict_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Number and proportion of unresolved pixels in the final merged rasters, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States. Unresolved pixels are a result of mismatched pixels that we could not resolve based on surrounding agricultural land (no agriculture with 90m radius).Resource Title: Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data. File Name: accuracy_datacoverage_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States. We defined coverage of reference data as the proportional area of land cover classes that were included in the reference data published by USDA-NASS and LANDFIRE for the Cropland Data Layer and National Vegetation Classification, respectively. CDL and NVC classes with reference data also had published accuracy statistics. Resource Title: Data Dictionary. File Name: Data_Dictionary_RasterMerge.csv