This is the GIS data and imagery used for analyses in the article
Sixty-seven years of land-use change in southern Costa Rica by Zahawi
et al. currently in revision at PLOS One.

This study required the orthorectification of historic aerial photographs, as well as forest cover mapping and landscape analysis of 320 km² around the Las Cruces Biological Station in San Vito de Coto Brus, Costa Rica. The imagery and GIS data generated were used to account for forest cover change over five different time periods from 1947 to 2014.

The datasets supplied include GIS files for:

• Extent of the study area (shapefile).
• Forest cover mapped for each time period (geotiff).
• Imagery of the mosaics generated with the orthorectified historic aerial photographs (geotiff).
• Age in studied time periods of the current forest patches (shapefile).
• Connectivity lines inside the studied area (shapefiles).

All files are in Costa Rica Transverse Mercator 2005 (CRTM05) projected coordinate reference system. For transformation between coordinate systems please refer to http://epsg.io/5367

Aerial photographs for the years 1947, 1960, 1980 and 1997 were acquired from the Organization for Tropical Studies GIS Lab and the Instituto Geográfico Nacional of Costa Rica. The orthorectification process was done first on the 1997 set of images and used the current 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 Costa Rican cartography to identify geographical reference points. The set of 1997 orthophotos was used as a reference set to orthorectify remaining years with the exception of 1947 images. The orthorectification process and all other geospatial analyses were done on the CRTM05 spatial reference system and the resulting orthophotos had a 2m cell size. The largest Root Mean Square error (RMSE) of the orthorectification of these three time slices of aerial photographs was 15 m.

Given the lack of information on flight parameters, and the expansive forest coverage in 1947 photographs, images were georeferenced and built into a mosaic using river basins and the few forest clearings that had a similar shape in the 1960 flyover. The 1947 set of images did not cover the whole study area, having empty areas without photographs that represented ˜12.1% of the analysis extent. Nonetheless, these areas were classified as forested given that forest was present in these same areas in the 1960 imagery.

Forest mapping was done by visual interpretation of orthophotos and Google imagery. The areas were considered forested if tree crowns were easily identified when viewing the images at a scale of 1:10,000. In areas where it was difficult to discern the type of land cover, a scale of 1:5,000 was used. This was done to eliminate agroforestry systems such as shaded coffee areas (with trees planted in rows) or very early stages of forest regeneration from the forest land-cover class. The analysis was done only in areas that were cloud free in the five time slices. This resulted in the elimination of 134 ha (~0.4%) from of the original area outlined above. Polygons were drawn over the different areas using QGIS and were transformed into raster files of 10 m cell size.

ps-places-metadata-v1.01

SUMMARY

This dataset comprises a pair of layers, (points and polys) which attempt to better locate "populated places" in NZ. Populated places are defined here as settled areas, either urban or rural where densitys of around 20 persons per hectare exist, and something is able to be seen from the air.

RATIONALE

The only liberally licensed placename dataset is currently LINZ geographic placenames, which has the following drawbacks: - coordinates are not place centers but left most label on 260 series map - the attributes are outdated

METHODOLOGY

This dataset necessarily involves cleaving the linz placenames set into two, those places that are poplulated, and those unpopulated. Work was carried out in four steps. First placenames were shortlisted according to the following criterion: - all places that rated at least POPL in the linz geographic places layer, ie POPL, METR or TOWN or USAT were adopted. - Then many additional points were added from a statnz meshblock density analysis.
- Finally remaining points were added from a check against linz residential polys, and zenbu poi clusters.

Spelling is broadly as per linz placenames, but there are differences for no particular reason. Instances of LINZ all upper case have been converted to sentance case. Some places not presently in the linz dataset are included in this set, usually new places, or those otherwise unnamed. They appear with no linz id, and are not authoritative, in some cases just wild guesses.

Density was derived from the 06 meshblock boundarys (level 2, geometry fixed), multipart conversion, merging in 06 usually resident MB population then using the formula pop/area*10000. An initial urban/rural threshold level of 0.6 persons per hectare was used.

Step two was to trace the approx extent of each populated place. The main purpose of this step was to determine the relative area of each place, and to create an intersection with meshblocks for population. Step 3 involved determining the political center of each place, broadly defined as the commercial center.

Tracing was carried out at 1:9000 for small places, and 1:18000 for large places using either bing or google satellite views. No attempt was made to relate to actual town 'boundarys'. For example large parks or raceways on the urban fringe were not generally included. Outlying industrial areas were included somewhat erratically depending on their connection to urban areas.

Step 3 involved determining the centers of each place. Points were overlaid over the following layers by way of a base reference:

a. original linz placenames b. OSM nz-locations points layer c. zenbu pois, latest set as of 5/4/11 d. zenbu AllSuburbsRegions dataset (a heavily hand modified) LINZ BDE extract derived dataset courtesy Zenbu. e. LINZ road-centerlines, sealed and highway f. LINZ residential areas, g. LINZ building-locations and building footprints h. Olivier and Co nz-urban-north and south

Therefore in practice, sources c and e, form the effective basis of the point coordinates in this dataset. Be aware that e, f and g are referenced to the LINZ topo data, while c and d are likely referenced to whatever roading dataset google possesses. As such minor discrepencys may occur when moving from one to the other.

Regardless of the above, this place centers dataset was created using the following criteria, in order of priority:

• attempts to represent the present (2011) subjective 'center' of each place as defined by its commercial/retail center ie. mainstreets where they exist, any kind of central retail cluster, even a single shop in very small places.
• the coordinate is almost always at the junction of two or more roads.
• most of the time the coordinate is at or near the centroid of the poi cluster
• failing any significant retail presence, the coordinate tends to be placed near the main road junction to the community.
• when the above criteria fail to yield a definitive answer, the final criteria involves the centroids of: . the urban polygons . the clusters of building footprints/locations.

To be clear the coordinates are manually produced by eye without any kind of computation. As such the points are placed approximately perhaps plus or minus 10m, but given that the roads layers are not that flash, no attempt was made to actually snap the coordinates to the road junctions themselves.

The final step involved merging in population from SNZ meshblocks (merge+sum by location) of popl polys). Be aware that due to the inconsistent way that meshblocks are defined this will result in inaccurate populations, particular small places will collect population from their surrounding area. In any case the population will generally always overestimate by including meshblocks that just nicked the place poly. Also there are a couple of dozen cases of overlapping meshblocks between two place polys and these will double count. Which i have so far made no attempt to fix.

Merged in also tla and regions from SNZ shapes, a few of the original linz atrributes, and lastly grading the size of urban areas according to SNZ 'urban areas" criteria. Ie: class codes:

1. Not used.
2. main urban area 30K+
3. secondary urban area 10k-30K
4. minor urban area 1k-10k
5. rural center 300-1K
6. village -300

Note that while this terminology is shared with SNZ the actual places differ owing to different decisions being made about where one area ends an another starts, and what constiutes a suburb or satellite. I expect some discussion around this issue. For example i have included tinwald and washdyke as part of ashburton and timaru, but not richmond or waikawa as part of nelson and picton. Im open to discussion on these.

No attempt has or will likely ever be made to locate the entire LOC and SBRB data subsets. We will just have to wait for NZFS to release what is thought to be an authoritative set.

PROJECTION

Shapefiles are all nztm. Orig data from SNZ and LINZ was all sourced in nztm, via koordinates, or SNZ. Satellite tracings were in spherical mercator/wgs84 and converted to nztm by Qgis. Zenbu POIS were also similarly converted.

ATTRIBUTES

Shapefile: Points id : integer unique to dataset name : name of popl place, string class : urban area size as above. integer tcode : SNZ tla code, integer rcode : SNZ region code, 1-16, integer area : area of poly place features, integer in square meters. pop : 2006 usually resident popluation, being the sum of meshblocks that intersect the place poly features. Integer lid : linz geog places id desc_code : linz geog places place type code

Shapefile: Polygons gid : integer unique to dataset, shared by points and polys name : name of popl place, string, where spelling conflicts occur points wins area : place poly area, m2 Integer

LICENSE

Clarification about the minorly derived nature of LINZ and google data needs to be sought. But pending these copyright complications, the actual points data is essentially an original work, released as public domain. I retain no copyright, nor any responsibility for data accuracy, either as is, or regardless of any changes that are subsequently made to it.

Peter Scott 16/6/2011

v1.01 minor spelling and grammar edits 17/6/11

This dataset contains open vector data for railways, forests and power lines, as well an open digital elevation model (DEM) for a small area around a sample forest range in Europe (Germany, Upper Bavaria, Kochel Forest Range, some 70 km south of München, at the edge of Bavarian Alps). The purpose of this dataset is to provide a documented sample dataset in order to demonstrate geospatial preprocessing at FOSS4G2019 based on open data and software. This sample has been produced based on several existing open data sources (detailed below), therefore documenting the sources for obtaining some data needed for computations related to forest accessibility and wood harvesting. For example, they can be used with the open methodology and QGIS plugin Seilaplan for optimising the geometric layout cable roads or with additional open software for computing the forest accessibility for wood harvesting. The vector data (railways, forests and power lines) was extracted from OpenStreetMap (data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors and available from https://www.openstreetmap.org). The railways and forests were downloaded and extracted on 18.05.2019 using the open sources QGIS (https://www.qgis.org) with the QuickOSM plugin, while the power lines were downloaded a couple of days later on 23.05.2019. Additional notes for vector data: Please note that OpenStreeMap data extracts such as forests, roads and railways (except power lines) can also be downloaded in a GIS friendly format (Shapefile) from http://download.geofabrik.de/ or using the QGIS built-in download function for OpenStreetMap data. The most efficient way to retrieve specific OSM tags (such as power=line) is to use the QuickOSM plugin for QGIS (using the Overpass API - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API) or directly using overpass turbo (https://overpass-turbo.eu/). Finally, the digitised perimeter of the sample forest range is also made available for reproducibility purposes, although any perimeter or area can be digitised freely using the QGIS editing toolbar. The DEM was originally adapted and modified also with QGIS (https://www.qgis.org) based on the elevation data available from two different sources, by reprojecting and downsampling datasets to 25m then selecting, for each individual raster cell, the elevation value that was closer to the average. These two different elevation sources are: - Copernicus Land Monitoring Service - EU-DEM v.1.1 (TILE ID E40N20, downloaded from https://land.copernicus.eu/imagery-in-situ/eu-dem/eu-dem-v1.1; this original DEM was produced by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service “with funding by the European Union” based on SRTM and ASTER GDEM) - Digitales Geländemodell 50 m Gitterweite (https://opendata.bayern.de/detailansicht/datensatz/digitales-gelaendemodell-50-m-gitterweite/), produced by the Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung – www.geodaten.bayern.de –and downloaded from http://www.geodaten.bayern.de/opendata/DGM50/dgm50_epsg4258.tif This methodology was chosen as a way of performing a basic quality check, by comparing the EU-DEM v.1.1 derived from globally available DEM data (such as SRTM) with more authoritative data for the randomly selected region, since using authoritative data is preferred (if open and available). For other sample regions, where authoritative open data is not available, such comparisons cannot longer be performed. Additional notes DEM: a very good DEM open data source for Germany is the open data set collected and resampled by Sonny (sonnyy7@gmail.com) and made available on the Austrian Open Data Portal http://data.opendataportal.at/dataset/dtm-germany. In order to simplify end-to-end reproducibility of the paper planned for FOSS4G2019, we use and distribute an adapted (reprojected and resampled to 25 meters) sample of the above mentioned dataset for the selected forest range. This sample dataset is accompanied by software in Python, as a Jupiter Notebook that generates harmonized output rasters with the same extent from the input data. The extent is given by the polygon vector dataset (Perimeter). These output rasters, such as obstacles, aspect, slope, forest cover, can serve as input data for later computations related to forest accessibility and wood harvesting questions. The obstacles output is obtained by transforming line vector datasets (railway lines, high voltage power lines) to raster. Aspect and slope are both derived from the sample digital elevation model.

This is a feature class outlining Palm Oil Plantations in Ucayali Province in Peru. A small team of faculty and student researchers hand digitized polygons delineating palm oil plantations in Ucayali, Peru in support of SERVIR Amazonia goals. GIS experts used high-resolution (< 1 m) optical observations to identify areas of oil palm presence across different conditions (young vs. mature, industrial vs. small-scale). This hand-digitized oil palm presence map will serve as a calibration / validation dataset for an automated classification model using remote sensing observations. This task presented numerous challenges, namely the availability of cloud-free, high resolution imagery. Polygons were digitized from numerous imagery datasets including mosaiced basemap imagery from Maxar and Planet Scope. Whenever the high resolution Maxar imagery was available, it was used. In some cases, we were unable to procure imagery in the time frame. We provide a training document describing our methodology and process in QGIS, an open source geospatial software package so other researchers could repeat our methods at later times or different geographic extents. The major variables in our study were the spatial extents of the palm oil plantations, whether they were open or closed canopy, and the imagery data source

Aim: Effective management decisions depend on knowledge of species distribution and habitat use. Maps generated from species distribution models are important in predicting previously unknown occurrences of protected species. However, if populations are seasonally dynamic or locally adapted, failing to consider population level differences could lead to erroneous determinations of occurrence probability and ineffective management. The study goal was to model the distribution of a species of special concern, Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii), in California. We incorporate seasonal and spatial differences to estimate the distribution under current and future climate conditions. Methods: We built species distribution models using all records from statewide roost surveys and by subsetting data to seasonal colonies, representing different phenological stages, and to Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregions to understand how environmental needs vary based on these factors. We projected species’ distribution for 2061-2080 in response to low and high emissions scenarios and calculated the expected range shifts. Results: The estimated distribution differed between the combined (full dataset) and phenologically-explicit models, while ecoregion-specific models were largely congruent with the combined model. Across the majority of models, precipitation was the most important variable predicting the presence of C. townsendii roosts. Under future climate scnearios, distribution of C. townsendii is expected to contract throughout the state, however suitable areas will expand within some ecoregions. Main conclusion: Comparison of phenologically-explicit models with combined models indicate the combined models better predict the extent of the known range of C. townsendii in California. However, life history-explicit models aid in understanding of different environmental needs and distribution of their major phenological stages. Differences between ecoregion-specific and statewide predictions of habitat contractions highlight the need to consider regional variation when forecasting species’ responses to climate change. These models can aid in directing seasonally explicit surveys and predicting regions most vulnerable under future climate conditions. Methods Study area and survey data The study area covers the U.S. state of California, which has steep environmental gradients that support an array of species (Dobrowski et al. 2011). Because California is ecologically diverse, with regions ranging from forested mountain ranges to deserts, we examined local environmental needs by modeling at both the state-wide and ecoregion scale, using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Level III ecoregion designations and there are thirteen Level III ecoregions in California (Table S1.1) (Griffith et al. 2016). Species occurrence data used in this study were from a statewide survey of C. townsendii in California conducted by Harris et al. (2019). Briefly, methods included field surveys from 2014-2017 following a modified bat survey protocol to create a stratified random sampling scheme. Corynorhinus townsendii presence at roost sites was based on visual bat sightings. From these survey efforts, we have visual occurrence data for 65 maternity roosts, 82 hibernation roosts (hibernacula), and 91 active-season non-maternity roosts (transition roosts) for a total of 238 occurrence records (Figure 1, Table S1.1). Ecogeographical factors We downloaded climatic variables from WorldClim 2.0 bioclimatic variables (Fick & Hijmans, 2017) at a resolution of 5 arcmin for broad-scale analysis and 30 arcsec for our ecoregion-specific analyses. To calculate elevation and slope, we used a digital elevation model (USGS 2022) in ArcGIS 10.8.1 (ESRI, 2006). The chosen set of environmental variables reflects knowledge on climatic conditions and habitat relevant to bat physiology, phenology, and life history (Rebelo et al. 2010, Razgour et al. 2011, Loeb and Winters 2013, Razgour 2015, Ancillotto et al. 2016). To trim the global environmental variables to the same extent (the state of California), we used the R package “raster” (Hijmans et al. 2022). We performed a correlation analysis on the raster layers using the “layerStats” function and removed variables with a Pearson’s coefficient > 0.7 (see Table 1 for final model variables). For future climate conditions, we selected three general circulation models (GCMs) based on previous species distribution models of temperate bat species (Razgour et al. 2019) [Hadley Centre Global Environment Model version 2 Earth Systems model (HadGEM3-GC31_LL; Webb, 2019), Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace Coupled Model 6th Assessment Low Resolution (IPSL-CM6A-LR; Boucher et al., 2018), and Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Earth System Model Low Resolution (MPI-ESM1-2-LR; Brovkin et al., 2019)] and two contrasting greenhouse concentration trajectories (Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs): a steady decline pathway with CO2 concentrations of 360 ppmv (SSP1-2.6) and an increasing pathway with CO2 reaching around 2,000 ppmv (SSP5-8.5) (IPCC6). We modeled distribution for present conditions future (2061-2080) time periods. Because one aim of our study was to determine the consequences of changing climate, we changed only the climatic data when projecting future distributions, while keeping the other variables constant over time (elevation, slope). Species distribution modeling We generated distribution maps for total occurrences (maternity + hibernacula + transition, hereafter defined as “combined models”), maternity colonies , hibernacula, and transition roosts. To estimate the present and future habitat suitability for C. townsendii in California, we used the maximum entropy (MaxEnt) algorithm in the “dismo” R package (Hijmans et al. 2021) through the advanced computing resources provided by Texas A&M High Performance Research Computing. We chose MaxEnt to aid in the comparisons of state-wide and ecoregion-specific models as MaxEnt outperforms other approaches when using small datasets (as is the case in our ecoregion-specific models). We created 1,000 background points from random points in the environmental layers and performed a 5-fold cross validation approach, which divided the occurrence records into training (80%) and testing (20%) datasets. We assessed the performance of our models by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC; Hanley & McNeil, 1982), where values >0.5 indicate that the model is performing better than random, values 0.5-0.7 indicating poor performance, 0.7-0.9 moderate performance and values of 0.9-1 excellent performance (BCCVL, Hallgren et al., 2016). We also measured the maximum true skill statistic (TSS; Allouche, Tsoar, & Kadmon, 2006) to assess model performance. The maxTSS ranges from -1 to +1:values <0.4 indicate a model that performs no better than random, 0.4-0.55 indicates poor performance, (0.55-0.7) moderate performance, (0.7-0.85) good performance, and values >0.80 indicate excellent performance (Samadi et al. 2022). Final distribution maps were generated using all occurrence records for each region (rather than the training/testing subset), and the models were projected onto present and future climate conditions. Additionally, because the climatic conditions of the different ecoregions of California vary widely, we generated separate models for each ecoregion in an attempt to capture potential local effects of climate change. A general rule in species distribution modeling is that the occurrence points should be 10 times the number of predictors included in the model, meaning that we would need 50 occurrences in each ecoregion. One common way to overcome this limitation is through the ensemble of small models (ESMs) (Breiner et al. 2015., 2018; Virtanen et al. 2018; Scherrer et al. 2019; Song et al. 2019) included in ecospat R package (references). For our ESMs we implemented MaxEnt modeling, and the final ensemble model was created by averaging individual bivariate models by weighted performance (AUC > 0.5). We also used null model significance testing with to evaluate the performance of our ESMs (Raes and Ter Steege 2007). To perform null model testing we compared AUC scores from 100 null models using randomly generated presence locations equal to the number used in the developed distribution model. All ecoregion models outperformed the null expectation (p<0.002). Estimating range shifts For each of the three GCMs and each RCP scenario, we converted the probability distribution map into a binary map (0=unsuitable, 1=suitable) using the threshold that maximizes sensitivity and specificity (Liu et al. 2016). To create the final maps for each SSP scenario, we summed the three binary GCM layers and took a consensus approach, meaning climatically suitable areas were pixels where at least two of the three models predicted species presence (Araújo and New 2007, Piccioli Cappelli et al. 2021). We combined the future binary maps (fmap) and the present binary maps (pmap) following the formula fmap x 2 + pmap (from Huang et al., 2017) to produce maps with values of 0 (areas not suitable), 1 (areas that are suitable in the present but not the future), 2 (areas that are not suitable in the present but suitable in the future), and 3 (areas currently suitable that will remain suitable) using the raster calculator function in QGIS. We then calculated the total area of suitability, area of maintenance, area of expansion, and area of contraction for each binary model using the “BIOMOD_RangeSize” function in R package “biomod2” (Thuiller et al. 2021).

The Science Case in the Caribbean region presents records on landslides, precipitation, maps used as inputs of hazard models and drone imagery over the region of interest.
For the Carribean study-case, an analysis of open and proprietary satellite based dataset was used to facilitate the setup and evaluation of physically-based multi-hazard models. These allow for qualification and quantification of spatio-temporal multi-hazard patterns. These form a crucial input into the general hazard and risk assessment workflow.

Presented here are the datasets employed for Case Study 4 in Deliverable D3.1 with a short description, produced and saved within the following folders:

Dominica_landslide: the landslides datasets mapped by ITC using high-resolution satellite imagery. It is intended to calibrate and validate the flood and landslide modelling. The folder contains four shapefiles:

· Landslide_Part.shp - Shapefile containing landslide extent, flash flood extents, and their attributes.

· Cloud.shp – Shapefile represents the cloud-filled areas in the satellite imagery where no mapping was possible.

· The other two shapefiles are self-explanatory.

GPM_Maria: NASA Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) precipitation maps processed for model input in LISEM. GPM is a hybrid fusion with satellite datasets for precipitation estimates. Mean as input data to represent precipitation in the landslide and flood modelling.

Maps_Models_Input : Soil and land use and channels, lots of custom work, SOILGRIDS, and SPOT image classification; all the datasets are ready for model input for OpenLISEM and LISEM Hazard or FastFlood. The dataset is meant to calibrate and validate the flood and landslide modelling.

The raster files are either in Geotiff format or PCraster map format. Both can be opened by GIS systems such as GDAL or QGIS. The projection of each file is in UTM20N.

Some key files are:

• dem.map -elevation model, the height of the landscape in meters above sea level.
• lai.map - leaf area index, estimated using empirical relationships based on NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index)). The source data to calculate NDVI is Sentinel-2.
• KSat.map - Saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil, estimated based on a combination of SOILGRIDS soil texture, Saxton et al. (2006) Pedotransfer functions, and a national soil map for Dominica.
• clay.map - Clay texture fraction, SoilGrids resampling
• silt.map - Silt texture fraction, SoilGrids resampling
• sand.map - Sand texture fraction, SoilGrids resampling
• cover.map - Vegetation cover as a fraction, estimated using linear correlation with NDVI.
• lu_new.map - Spot satellite image classification at 10 meters resolution for predominant land use types.
• n.map - Mannings surface roughness coefficient, specific value based on the land use type.
• ndvi.map - Normalized Differential Vegetation Index, based on Sentinel-2 images in summer.
• ldd.map - Drainage network map for the island, which can be used for flow accumulation and streamflow detection
• catchments.map - Catchment ID's based on the ldd.map drainage network.
• Channelldd.map - Channel-only drainage network map, calibrated manually to have all channels on the island represented correctly.
• Soildepth - Soil depth in meters, based on a physically-based soil depth model in meters and observational data obtained from landslide-sites during fieldwork in 2018.
• Slope.map - Slope map in gradient of the elevation model (m/m) in the steepest direction

StakeholderQuestionnaire_Survey_ITC: The stakeholder questionnaires particularly relating to the tools developed partly by this project on rapid hazard modelling. Stakeholder Engagement survey and Stakeholder Survey Results prepared and implemented by Sruthie Rajendran as part of her MSc Thesis Twin Framework For Decision Support In Flood Risk Management supervised by Dr. M.N. Koeva (Mila) and Dr. B. van den Bout (Bastian) submitted in July 2024.

·Drone_Images_ 2024: Images captured using a DJI drone of part of the Study area in February 2024. The file comprises three different regions: Coulibistrie, Pichelin and Point Michel. The 3D models for Coulibistrie were generated from the nadir drone images using photogrammetric techniques employed by the software Pix4D. The image Coordinate System is WGS 84 (EGM 96 Geoid0), but the Output Coordinate System of the 3D model is WGS 84 / UTM zone 20N (EGM 96 Geoid). The other two folders contain only the drone images captured for that particular region's Pichelin and Point Michel. The dataset is used with other datasets to prepare and create the digital twin framework tailored for flood risk management in the study area.

This dataset contains the geographic regions defined for the National Climate Risk Assessment covering the coastal waters of Australia. Coastal waters fall under the jurisdiction of the states and territories. As the mainland National Climate Risk Assessment regions split Western Australia and Queensland into a north and a south region, the coastal waters for those two states have also been split in line with the mainland geographic regions.Status: FinalDataset version:v1, v20240813Maintenance:Not plannedField of research: Division 04 Earth SciencesLineage:This dataset contains the National Climate Risk Assessment Geographic Regions, coastal waters. The base is from the Coastal Waters areas (AMB2020) dataset: Coastal Waters areas (AMB2020) | Coastal Waters areas (AMB2020) | Australian Marine Spatial Information System (AMSIS) (arcgis.com). The coastal waters region were extracted from the base dataset using the difference function (QGIS) and the NCRA regions (mainland) dataset: NCRA regions | Australian Climate Service (acs.gov.au). The coastal waters of Queensland and Western Australia were split into north and south regions based on the coastal split in the NCRA regions (mainland) dataset. The rationale for splitting WA and QLD into two regions is given in the published National Climate Risk Assessment Methodology (https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/national-climate-risk-assessment).

The GIS database contains the data of aufeis (naled) in the Chukotka region from historical and nowadays sources, and complete ArcGIS 10.1/10.2 and Qgis 3* projects to view and analyze the data. All data and projects have WGS 1984 coordinate system (without projection). ArcGIS and Qgis projects contain two layers, such as Aufeis_kadastr (historical aufeis data collection, point objects) and Aufeis_Landsat (satellite-derived aufeis data collection, polygon objects). Historical data collection is created based on the Cadastre of aufeis (naled) of the North-East of the USSR (1958). Each aufeis was digitized as point feature by the inventory map (scale 1:2 000 000), or by topographic maps. Attributive data was obtained from the Cadastre of aufeis. According to the historical data, there were 2024 aufeis with a total area 2976.9 km² within the studied area. Present-day aufeis dataset was created by Landsat-8 OLI images for the period 2013-2019. Each aufeis was delineated by satellite images as polygon. Cloud-free Landsat images are obtained immediately after snowmelt season, to detect the highest possible number of aufeis. Critical values of Normalized Difference Snow Index (NDSI) were used for semi-automated aufeis detection. However, a detailed expert-based verification was performed after automated procedure, to distinguish snow-covered areas from aufeis and cross-reference historical and satellite-based data collections. According to Landsat data, the number of aufeis reaches 2758, with their total area about 1147.1 km². The difference between the Cadastre (1958) and the satellite-derived data may indicate significant changes of aufeis formation environments.

The High Resolution Digital Elevation Model (HRDEM) product is derived from airborne LiDAR data (mainly in the south) and satellite images in the north. The complete coverage of the Canadian territory is gradually being established. It includes a Digital Terrain Model (DTM), a Digital Surface Model (DSM) and other derived data. For DTM datasets, derived data available are slope, aspect, shaded relief, color relief and color shaded relief maps and for DSM datasets, derived data available are shaded relief, color relief and color shaded relief maps. The productive forest line is used to separate the northern and the southern parts of the country. This line is approximate and may change based on requirements. In the southern part of the country (south of the productive forest line), DTM and DSM datasets are generated from airborne LiDAR data. They are offered at a 1 m or 2 m resolution and projected to the UTM NAD83 (CSRS) coordinate system and the corresponding zones. The datasets at a 1 m resolution cover an area of 10 km x 10 km while datasets at a 2 m resolution cover an area of 20 km by 20 km. In the northern part of the country (north of the productive forest line), due to the low density of vegetation and infrastructure, only DSM datasets are generally generated. Most of these datasets have optical digital images as their source data. They are generated at a 2 m resolution using the Polar Stereographic North coordinate system referenced to WGS84 horizontal datum or UTM NAD83 (CSRS) coordinate system. Each dataset covers an area of 50 km by 50 km. For some locations in the north, DSM and DTM datasets can also be generated from airborne LiDAR data. In this case, these products will be generated with the same specifications as those generated from airborne LiDAR in the southern part of the country. The HRDEM product is referenced to the Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum of 2013 (CGVD2013), which is now the reference standard for heights across Canada. Source data for HRDEM datasets is acquired through multiple projects with different partners. Since data is being acquired by project, there is no integration or edgematching done between projects. The tiles are aligned within each project. The product High Resolution Digital Elevation Model (HRDEM) is part of the CanElevation Series created in support to the National Elevation Data Strategy implemented by NRCan. Collaboration is a key factor to the success of the National Elevation Data Strategy. Refer to the “Supporting Document” section to access the list of the different partners including links to their respective data.

Spatial dataset derived from many different open data repositories and cropped on the Omo-Turkana Basin boundary, used to create a base-map describing the components of Water-Energy-Food nexus in the case study.

omo-turkana.gpkg: vector dataset including the following layers, together with the related map style for QGIS Desktop used in the DAFNE Geoportal basemap:

• basin: Hydrological basin of the Omo-Turkana river (case study boundary)
• subbasin: Basins of the main tributaries
• waterbodies: Natural lakes and reservoirs boundaries
• rivers: River network
• dams: Existing dams
• protected_areas: Protected areas
• aei_pct_cells: Area equipped for irrigation, expressed as percentage of total area.
• roads: Main roads network
• cities: Main cities in the riparian countries
• countries: Administrative borders of riparian countries
• markers: DAFNE model components location, with existing and planned dams and power plants, irrigation schemes, environmental target areas.

zambezi_raster.zip: raster dataset including the following layers:

• srtm_90m: Digital Elevation Model
• Global Surface Water:
  • change: Occurrence Change Intensity map provides information on where surface water occurrence increased, decreased or remained the same between 1984-1999 and 2000-2015
  • extent: Maximum Water Extent shows all the locations ever detected as water over period 1984-2015
  • occurence: Occurrence shows where surface water occurred between 1984 and 2015 and provides information concerning overall water dynamics.
  • recurrence: Recurrence provides information concerning the inter-annual behaviour of water surfaces and captures the frequency with which water returns from year to year.
  • seasonality: Seasonality map provides information concerning the intra-annual behaviour of water surfaces for a single year (2015) and shows permanent and seasonal water and the number of months water was present.
  • transitions: Transitions map provides information on the change in surface water seasonality between the first and last years (between 1984 and 2015) and captures changes between the three classes of not water, seasonal water and permanent water.

Original data sources include:

• AQUASTAT, the FAO global information system on water resources and agricultural water management;

• Natural Earth, a public domain map dataset available at different scales;

• Protected Planet, the most up to date and complete source of data on protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, maintained by UNEP-WCMC and IUCN;

• OpenStreetMap, a collaborative project to create a free editable map of the world;

• NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Digital Elevation Database;

• Global Water Surface, a virtual time machine that maps the location and temporal distribution of water surfaces at the global scale.

The GIS database contains the data of aufeis (naleds) in the Indigirka River basin (Russia) from historical and nowadays sources, and complete ArcGIS 10.1/10.2 and Qgis 3* projects to view and analyze the data. All data and projects have WGS 1984 coordinate system (without projection). ArcGIS and Qgis projects contain two layers, such as Aufeis_kadastr (historical aufeis data collection, point objects) and Aufeis_Landsat (satellite-derived aufeis data collection, polygon objects). Historical data collection is created based on the Cadastre of aufeis (naleds) of the North-East of the USSR (1958). Each aufeis was digitized as point feature by the inventory map (scale 1:2 000 000), or by topographic maps. Attributive data was obtained from the Cadastre of aufeis. According to the historical data, there were 896 aufeis with a total area 2063.6 km² within the studied basin. Present-day aufeis dataset was created by Landsat-8 OLI images for the period 2013-2017. Each aufeis was delineated by satellite images as polygon. Cloud-free Landsat images are obtained immediately after snowmelt season (e.g. between May, 15 and June, 18), to detect the highest possible number of aufeis. Critical values of Normalized Difference Snow Index (NDSI) were used for semi-automated aufeis detection. However, a detailed expert-based verification was performed after automated procedure, to distinguish snow-covered areas from aufeis and cross-reference historical and satellite-based data collections. According to Landsat data, the number of aufeis reaches 1213, with their total area about 1287 km². The difference between the Cadastre (1958) and the satellite-derived data may indicate significant changes of aufeis formation environments.

Reason for SelectionProtected natural areas in urban environments provide urban residents a nearby place to connect with nature and offer refugia for some species. Because beaches in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are open to the public, beaches also provide important outdoor recreation opportunities for urban residents, so we include beaches as parks in this indicator.Input DataSoutheast Blueprint 2023 subregions: CaribbeanSoutheast Blueprint 2023 extentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Coastal Relief Model, accessed 11-22-2022Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0: VI, PR, and Marine Combined Fee EasementPuerto Rico Protected Natural Areas 2018 (December 2018 update): Terrestrial and marine protected areas (PACAT2018_areas_protegidasPR_TERRESTRES_07052019.shp, PACAT2018_areas_protegidasPR_MARINAS_07052019.shp) 2020 Census Urban Areas from the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification; download the data, read more about how urban areas were redefined following the 2020 censusOpenStreetMap data “multipolygons” layer, accessed 3-14-2023A polygon from this dataset is considered a park if the “leisure” tag attribute is either “park” or “nature_reserve”, and considered a beach if the value in the “natural” tag attribute is “beach”. OpenStreetMap describes leisure areas as “places people go in their spare time” and natural areas as “a wide variety of physical geography, geological and landcover features”. Data were downloaded in .pbf format and translated ton an ESRI shapefile using R code. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Additional credit to OSM contributors. Read more on the OSM copyright page. TNC Lands - Public Layer, accessed 3-8-2023U.S. Virgin Islands beaches layer (separate vector layers for St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John) provided by Joe Dwyer with Lynker/the NOAA Caribbean Climate Adaptation Program on 3-3-2023 (contact jdwyer@lynker.com for more information)Mapping StepsMost mapping steps were completed using QGIS (v 3.22) Graphical Modeler.Fix geometry errors in the PAD-US PR data using Fix Geometry. This must be done before any analysis is possible.Merge the terrestrial PR and VI PAD-US layers.Use the NOAA coastal relief model to restrict marine parks (marine polygons from PAD-US and Puerto Rico Protected Natural Areas) to areas shallower than 10 m in depth. The deep offshore areas of marine parks do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture nearby opportunities for urban residents to connect with nature.Merge into one layer the resulting shallow marine parks from marine PAD-US and the Puerto Rico Protected Natural Areas along with the combined terrestrial PAD-US parks, OpenStreetMap, TNC Lands, and USVI beaches. Omit from the Puerto Rico Protected Areas layer the “Zona de Conservación del Carso”, which has some policy protections and conservation incentives but is not formally protected.Fix geometry errors in the resulting merged layer using Fix Geometry.Intersect the resulting fixed file with the Caribbean Blueprint subregion.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (referred to in Arc software as an “explode”). This helps the indicator capture, as much as possible, the discrete units of a protected area that serve urban residents.Clip the Census urban area to the Caribbean Blueprint subregion.Select all polygons that intersect the Census urban extent within 1.2 miles (1,931 m). The 1.2 mi threshold is consistent with the average walking trip on a summer day (U.S. DOT 2002) used to define the walking distance threshold used in the greenways and trails indicator. Note: this is further than the 0.5 mi distance used in the continental version of the indicator. We extended it to capture East Bay and Point Udall based on feedback from the local conservation community about the importance of the park for outdoor recreation.Dissolve all the park polygons that were selected in the previous step.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (“explode”) again.Add a unique ID to the selected parks. This value will be used to join the parks to their buffers.Create a 1.2 mi (1,931 m) buffer ring around each park using the multiring buffer plugin in QGIS. Ensure that “dissolve buffers” is disabled so that a single 1.2 mi buffer is created for each park.Assess the amount of overlap between the buffered park and the Census urban area using overlap analysis. This step is necessary to identify parks that do not intersect the urban area, but which lie within an urban matrix. This step creates a table that is joined back to the park polygons using the UniqueID.Remove parks that had ≤2% overlap with the urban areas when buffered. This excludes mostly non-urban parks that do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture parks that provide nearby access for urban residents. Note: In the continental version of this indicator, we used a threshold of 10%. In the Caribbean version, we lowered this to 2% in order to capture small parks that dropped out of the indicator when we extended the buffer distance to 1.2 miles.Calculate the GIS acres of each remaining park unit using the Add Geometry Attributes function.Join the buffer attribute table to the previously selected parks, retaining only the parks that exceeded the 2% urban area overlap threshold while buffered. Buffer the selected parks by 15 m. Buffering prevents very small parks and narrow beaches from being left out of the indicator when the polygons are converted to raster.Reclassify the polygons into 7 classes, seen in the final indicator values below. These thresholds were informed by park classification guidelines from the National Recreation and Park Association, which classify neighborhood parks as 5-10 acres, community parks as 30-50 acres, and large urban parks as optimally 75+ acres (Mertes and Hall 1995).Export the final vector file to a shapefile and import to ArcGIS Pro.Convert the resulting polygons to raster using the ArcPy Polygon to Raster function. Assign values to the pixels in the resulting raster based on the polygon class sizes of the contiguous park areas.Clip to the Caribbean Blueprint 2023 subregion.As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2023. Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in the Southeast Blueprint Data Download under > 6_Code. Final indicator valuesIndicator values are assigned as follows:6 = 75+ acre urban park5 = >50 to <75 acre urban park4 = 30 to <50 acre urban park3 = 10 to <30 acre urban park2 = 5 to <10 acre urban park1 = <5 acre urban park0 = Not identified as an urban parkKnown IssuesThis indicator does not include park amenities that influence how well the park serves people and should not be the only tool used for parks and recreation planning. Park standards should be determined at a local level to account for various community issues, values, needs, and available resources. This indicator includes some protected areas that are not open to the public and not typically thought of as “parks”, like mitigation lands, private easements, and private golf courses. While we experimented with excluding them using the public access attribute in PAD, due to numerous inaccuracies, this inadvertently removed protected lands that are known to be publicly accessible. As a result, we erred on the side of including the non-publicly accessible lands.This indicator includes parks and beaches from OpenStreetMap, which is a crowdsourced dataset. While members of the OpenStreetMap community often verify map features to check for accuracy and completeness, there is the potential for spatial errors (e.g., misrepresenting the boundary of a park) or incorrect tags (e.g., labelling an area as a park that is not actually a park). However, using a crowdsourced dataset gives on-the-ground experts, Blueprint users, and community members the power to fix errors and add new parks to improve the accuracy and coverage of this indicator in the future.Other Things to Keep in MindThis indicator calculates the area of each park using the park polygons from the source data. However, simply converting those park polygons to raster results in some small parks and narrow beaches being left out of the indicator. To capture those areas, we buffered parks and beaches by 15 m and applied the original area calculation to the larger buffered polygon, so as not to inflate the area by including the buffer. As a result, when the buffered polygons are rasterized, the final indicator has some areas of adjacent pixels that receive different scores. While these pixels may appear to be part of one contiguous park or suite of parks, they are scored differently because the park polygons themselves are not actually contiguous. The Caribbean version of this indicator uses a slightly different methodology than the continental Southeast version. It includes parks within a 1.2 mi distance from the Census urban area, compared to 0.5 mi in the continental Southeast. We extended it to capture East Bay and Point Udall based on feedback from the local conservation community about the importance of the park for outdoor recreation. Similarly, this indicator uses a 2% threshold of overlap between buffered parks and the Census urban areas, compared to a 10% threshold in the continental Southeast. This helped capture small parks that dropped out of the indicator when we extended the buffer distance to 1.2 miles. Finally, the Caribbean version does not use the impervious surface cutoff applied in the continental Southeast because the landcover data available in the Caribbean does not assess percent impervious in a comparable way.Disclaimer: Comparing with Older Indicator VersionsThere are numerous problems with using Southeast Blueprint

Introduction

This travel time matrix records travel times and travel distances for routes between all centroids (N = 13132) of a 250 × 250 m grid over the populated areas in the Helsinki metropolitan area by walking, cycling, public transportation, and private car. If applicable, the routes have been calculated for different times of the day (rush hour, midday, off-peak), and assuming different physical abilities (such as walking and cycling speeds), see details below.

The grid follows the geometric properties and enumeration of the versatile Yhdyskuntarakenteen seurantajärjestelmä (YKR) grid used in applications across many domains in Finland, and covers the municipalities of Helsinki, Espoo, Kauniainen, and Vantaa in the Finnish capital region.

Data formats

The data is available in multiple different formats that cater to different requirements, such as different software environments. All data formats share a common set of columns (see below), and can be used interchangeably.

• Helsinki_Travel_Time_Matrix_2023.csv.zst: comma-separated values (CSV) of all data columns, without geometries. This data set contains all routes in one file, and can be filtered by origin or destination according to the analysis at hand. The data records can also be joined to the geometries as available below. The file is compressed using the Zstandard algorithm, that many data science libraries, for instance, pandas, support transparently, directly, and automatically.
• Helsinki_Travel_Time_Matrix_2023_travel_times.gpkg.zip: an OGC GeoPackage standard file containing all data columns and the geometries that relate to the destination grid cell. The data set is delivered as a ZIP archive, which many GIS systems and libraries, e.g., GDAL/OGR, QGIS, or geopandas, support natively.
• Helsinki_Travel_Matrix_2023_travel_times.csv.zip: a set of 13132 comma-separated value files containing the routes to one destination grid cell each. The files contain all data columns, no geometry, and can be joined to the geometries as available below. Filenames of the individual files within the ZIP archive follow the pattern Helsinki_Travel_Time_Matrix_2023_travel_times_to_5787545.csv where 5787545 is replaced by the to_id by which the rows in the file are grouped. Use the from_id column to join with the geometries from one of the files below.

Geometry, only:

• Helsinki_Travel_Time_Matrix_2023_grid.gpkg.zip: an OGC GeoPackage standard file containing the geometries and IDs of the grid used in the analysis. This file can be joined both to the from_id and to_id columns of the data files. The data set is delivered as a ZIP archive, which many GIS systems and libraries, e.g., GDAL/OGR, QGIS, or geopandas, support natively.
• Helsinki_Travel_Time_Matrix_2023_grid.shp.zip: an ESRI Shapefile archive containing the geometries and IDs of the grid used in the analysis. This file can be joined both to the from_id and to_id columns of the data files.

Table structure

from_id: ID number of the origin grid cell
to_id: ID number of the destination grid cell
walk_avg: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by walking at an average speed
walk_slo: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by walking slowly
bike_avg: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by cycling at an average speed
bike_fst: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by cycling fast
bike_slo: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by cycling slowly
pt_r_avg: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by public transportation in rush hour traffic, walking at an average speed
pt_r_slo: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by public transportation in rush hour traffic, walking at a slower speed
pt_m_avg: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by public transportation in midday traffic, walking at an average speed
pt_m_slo: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by public transportation in midday traffic, walking at a slower speed
pt_n_avg: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by public transportation in nighttime traffic, walking at an average speed
pt_n_slo: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by public transportation in nighttime traffic, walking at a lower speed
car_r: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by private car in rush hour traffic
car_m: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by private car in midday traffic
car_n: Travel time in minutes from origin to destination by private car in nighttime traffic
walk_d: Distance from origin to destination, in meters, on foot

Data for 2013, 2015, and 2018

At the Digital Geography Lab, we started computing travel time matrices in 2013. Our methodology has changed in between the iterations, and naturally, there are systematic differences between the iterations' results. Not all input data sets are available to recompute the historical matrices with new methods, however, we were able to repeat the 2018 calculation using the same methods as the 2023 data set, please find the results below, in the same format.

For the travel time matrices for 2013 and 2015, as well as for 2018 using an older methodology, please refer to DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3247563.

Methodology

Computations were carried out for Wednesday, 15 February, 2023, and Monday, 29 January, 2018, respectively. 'Rush hour' refers to an 1-hour window between 8 and 9 am, 'midday' to 12 noon to 1 pm, and 'nighttime' to 2-3 am.

All routes have been calculated using r5py, a Python library making use of the R5 engine by Conveyal, with modifications to consider local characteristics of the Helsinki use case and to inform the computation models from local real-world data sets. In particular, we made the following modifications:

Walking

Walking speeds, and in turn walking times, are based on the findings of Willberg et al., 2023, in which we measured walking speeds of people of different age groups in varying road surface conditions in Helsinki. Specifically, we chose to use the average measured walking speed in summer conditions for walk_avg (as well as the respective pt_*_walk_avg), and the slowest quintile of all measured walker across all conditions for walk_slo (and the respective pt_*_walk_slo).

Cycling

Cycling speeds are derived from two input data sets. First, we averaged cycling speeds per network segment from Strava data, and computed a ratio between the speed ridden in each segment and the overall average speed. We then use these ratios to compute fast, slow, and average cycling speeds for each segment, based on the mean overall Strava speed, the mean speeds cycled in the Helsinki City Bike bike-share system, and the mean between the two.

Further, in line with the values observed by Jäppinen (2012), we add a flat 30 seconds each for unlocking and locking the bicycle at the origin and destination.

Public Transport

We used public transport schedules in General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) format published by the Helsinki Regional Transport Authority, and adjusted the walking speeds (for connections between vehicles, as well as for access and egress to and from public transport stops) using the same methods as described above for walking.

Private motorcar

To represent road speeds actually driven in the Helsinki metropolitan region, we used floating car data of a representative sample of the roads in the region to derive the differences between the speed limit and the driven speed on different road classes, and by speed limit, see Perola (2023) for a detailed description of the methodology. Because these per-segment speeds factor in potential waiting times at road crossings, we eliminated turn penalties from R5.

Our modifications were carried out in two ways: some changes can

The FireSpread_MedEU dataset contains high resolution wildfire propgation data for 102 wildfire events in the Mediterranean area and Europe between 2017 and 2023. Each event is represented by varying amounts of fire propagation steps (at least two), depending on its final size and duration. Using the individual burned areas of all propagation steps of a wildfire, spatiotemporal fire progression can be reconstructed over the course of mutliple days in high accuracy.

For the 102 wildfire events, a total of 313 individual propagation steps were reconstructed from Planet Lab Inc. satellite images. Planet offers daily updated high resolution data covering four bands in the Blue, Green, Red and Near-Infrared (NIR) region. Using a semi-automated approach in Python, we extracted initial burned areas from these images based on NIR thresholding. Afterwards, we manually refined every burned area in QGIS by optically comparing the retrieved burned area with their respective satellite image displayed in different band combinations. This way, we were able to draw highly accurate borders for every available fire day. In some cases, smoke or clouds prevented a clear view on the exact boundary, leading to potential offsets of real and drawn burned area border. This is indicated in the additional features of the dataset. Depending on the availability of clear sky satellite data, the duration between the propagation steps varies. In the best case scenario, fire spread is updated daily (63% of all propagation steps).

FireSpread_MedEU is provided in the shapefile format (EPSG:3035). It contains burned area geometries of each propagation step, from which the spatial and temporal evolution of a wildfire event can be reconstructed (in accordance with the accuracy limits of the underlying satellite data). The dataset contains additional information regarding day and time of satellite image processing, smoke or cloud obstruction, size of the burned area, an ID that links the fire to the EFFIS burned area database, and a subjective quality assessment by the authors. The latter is based on the level of cloud and smoke obstruction in the image and can be used to filter the burned areas according the users needs. A detailed explanation of the features is provided in the pdf that accompanies the zipped shapefile that contains the data.

This work was performed during the TREEADS project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research & innovation programme under grant agreement No 101036926. Content reflects only the authors’ view and European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Planet Labs Inc. data provided by the European Space Agency (ESA). Several burned areas were refined with Planet data provided by the Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy.

This portfolio includes three sets of data, used and explained in Lazarus, Williams & Goldstein (preprint: https://doi.org/10.31223/X5JH1X):

washover morphometry measured from lidar-derived topographic change along the coastline of New Jersey, USA, following Hurricane Sandy (2012) ('NJ_Sandy_metrics.csv');

the geospatial data layers used to generate those measurements ('WashoverGIS.zip');

and a compilation of washover morphometry reported in the literature ('washover_LAV_literature_examples.csv').

Washover morphometry datasets

NJ_Sandy_metrics.csv – The lidar-derived washover morphometry dataset includes: deposit width (m), intrusion length (m), deposit area (m2), deposit volume (m3), deposit perimeter (m), built fraction, the storm event (Sandy 2012), and a general location note.

washover_LAV_literature_examples.csv – Also included here are 35 measurements of washover morphometry reported in the literature by six different studies, sampling different storm events in different coastal barrier settings (Carruthers et al., 2013; Williams, 2015; Jamison-Todd et al., 2020; Rodriguez et al. 2020; Hansen et al., 2021; Williams & Rains, 2022). The literature-based dataset includes: intrusion length (m), deposit area (m2), deposit volume (m3), the reference (dataset) in which the measurements were reported, and additional notes.

Geospatial data layers

The lidar data underpinning the geospatial data layers here are available from the NOAA Digital Coast Data Viewer (https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/): "2012 USGS EAARL-B Lidar: Pre-Sandy" (pre-storm), and "2012 USGS EAARL-B Lidar: Post-Sandy" (post-storm).

Geospatial analysis was done in QGIS version 3.22.5. We masked both the pre- and post-storm surfaces to isolate only positive elevations, and subtracted the pre-storm surface from the post-storm surface to calculated the difference between them; we then retained only the positive differences in the resulting surface to isolate sites of sediment deposition. We manually digitized the perimeters of depositional forms we interpreted as washover, corroborated by aerial imagery (https://storms.ngs.noaa.gov/).

Basic geometric characteristics (perimeter, area) were taken directly from the washover polygons; washover length and width were taken from oriented minimum bounding boxes around each polygon. Volume for each washover polygon was measured using the Volume Calculation Tool (version 0.4) plugin for QGIS (https://github.com/REDcatch/Volume_calculation_for_QGIS3). In built settings, each washover deposit was associated with a locally estimated built fraction (Lazarus et al., 2021). Elements of the built environment (i.e., buildings) were isolated by creating a binary mask of the pre-storm surface, such that all elevations ³5 m were set to a value = 1, and all elevations <5 m set to zero. Minimum enclosing circles were drawn around each washover polygon, and the total built area (masked value = 1) within each circle summed using the QGIS Zonal Statistics tool. Here, local built fraction is the total built area within a minimum enclosing circle divided by the area of that circle.

Geospatial files here include:

NJ_north_wash_metrics.shp // NJ_south_wash_metrics.shp – shapefiles of the digitized washover deposits, with morphometric characteristics compiled in their attribute tables

NJ_north_BBs.shp // NJ_south_BBs.shp – oriented bounding boxes to determine deposit intrusion length & width

NJ_north_MECs.shp // NJ_south_MECs.shp – minimum enclosing circles, used for calculating local built fraction

NJ_north_dSandy_POS.tif // NJ_south_dSandy_POS.tif – positive [post-storm - pre-storm] elevation differences

NJ_north_rooftops_th05.tif // NJ_north_rooftops_th05.tif – binary mask based on the pre-storm lidar layer ("2012 USGS EAARL-B Lidar: Pre-Sandy") used for calculating built fraction, in which all topographic elements >= 5 m are set = 1, and all < 5 m are set = 0

The subspecies of American badger (Taxidea taxus berlandieri Baird, 1858), also called tlalcoyote (Figure 1), is distributed in north-central Mexico. However, its occurrence records are scarce and the few that exist are uncertain due to incorrect georeferencing or identification of the taxonomic unit. In view of this, we disgned a spatial sampling in part of the states of Coahuila de Zaragoza, Durango, Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí and Zacatecas. In this north-central protion of Mexico, we generated a grid of squares measuring 5 × 5 km over the entire study area using QGIS® 3.10 software. Subsequently, we excluded squares that included urban settlements, agricultural land, or water bodies in more than 30% of their extension; we also descarted squares located at an altitude over 2,250 meters above sea level. To perform this filtering, we used both the land use and vegetation chart of the INEGI [Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática] (2018) and the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) downloaded from the USGS page [United States Geological Survey] (2019) as a basis. As result, we obtained 3,471 squares separated by at least 5 km. Then, through simple random sampling, 177 (≈5%) squares were selected, where we generated centroids to be used as sampling sites.

In field work, between 2009 and 2015, at these 177 sites we traced a 10 × 100 m transect, where we searched for T. t. berlandieri signs (i.e., burrows and scratching posts). In this case, their burrows and scratching posts are easily observed and quantified, and there is no chance of mistaking them for burrows of other species (Long 1973; Merlin 1999). Also, we recorded possible sightings, as other studies (e.g., Merlin 1999; Elbroch 2003). As result, we only found 33 with signs of occurrence.

Figure 1. Individual of tlalcoyote (Taxidea taxus Berlandieri). Photo obtained from Naturalista (2023) and uploaded by David Molina©. All rights reserved (CC BY-NC-ND).

To increase the number of records, we included occurrence data from GBIF [Global Biodiversity Information Facility portal] (2022). We downloaded only the records that included coordinates and that their basis of registration was "preserved specimen". This, because they are correctly identified as specimens from biological collections (Maldonado et al. 2015). In addition, we only selected records for Mexico. Subsequently, we filtered the downloaded database, discarding records that were incorrectly georeferenced, with atypical and duplicate coordinates, as well as with low geospatial accuracy (e.g., less than three decimals of precision).

We loaded the remaining data into the QGIS® software and performed a spatial filtering, where we excluded data that were outside the study area, located in unlikely areas (e.g., human settlements, bodies of water, agricultural areas) and with a distance of less than 5 km from the records obtained in the field. This gave a total of 10 records from the GBIF portal. Finally, we loaded the raster layers of elevation (Elev; INEGI 2007), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI, USGS 2019) and the slope of the terrain into the software to extract the pixel values based on the GBIF records and those obtained in the field. With this, we generated a new global dataset to which we performed environmental filtering to find environmental outliers. We plotted the normality distribution of the data for each variable and the dispersion of the data among the variables. In this filtering, we conserve all records. Figure 2 shows the normality distribution of the records as a function of Elev. Figure 3 shows the dispersion of the data between Elev and NDVI.

Figure 2. Normality distribution of T. t. berlandieri occurrence records as a function of the elevation variable (Elev).

Figure 3. Scatter plot of T. t. berlandieri occurrence records as a function of elevation (Elev) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI).

For the north-central region of Mexico, we present the global database (i.e., Tatabe_joint.csv), as well as the database that contains only the field evidence records (i.e., Tatabe_first_order.csv) and another one with the filtered GBIF records (i.e., Tatabe_GBIF.csv).

This resource contains data inputs and a Jupyter Notebook that is used to introduce Hydrologic Analysis using Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models (TauDEM) and Python. TauDEM is a free and open-source set of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) tools developed at Utah State University for the extraction and analysis of hydrologic information from topography. This resource is part of a HydroLearn Physical Hydrology learning module available at https://edx.hydrolearn.org/courses/course-v1:Utah_State_University+CEE6400+2019_Fall/about

In this activity, the student learns how to (1) derive hydrologically useful information from Digital Elevation Models (DEMs); (2) describe the sequence of steps involved in mapping stream networks, catchments, and watersheds; and (3) compute an approximate water balance for a watershed-based on publicly available data.

Please note that this exercise is designed for the Logan River watershed, which drains to USGS streamflow gauge 10109000 located just east of Logan, Utah. However, this Jupyter Notebook and the analysis can readily be applied to other locations of interest. If running the terrain analysis for other study sites, you need to prepare a DEM TIF file, an outlet shapefile for the area of interest, and the average annual streamflow and precipitation data. - There are several sources to obtain DEM data. In the U.S., the DEM data (with different spatial resolutions) can be obtained from the National Elevation Dataset available from the national map (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/). Another DEM data source is the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/), an international research effort that obtained digital elevation models on a near-global scale (search for Digital Elevation at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-products-overview?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects). - If not already available, you can generate the outlet shapefile by applying basic terrain analysis steps in geospatial information system models such as ArcGIS or QGIS. - You also need to obtain average annual streamflow and precipitation data for the watershed of interest to assess the annual water balance and calculate the runoff ratio in this exercise. In the U.S., the streamflow data can be obtained from the USGS NWIS website (https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) and the precipitation from PRISM (https://prism.oregonstate.edu/normals/). Note that using other datasets may require preprocessing steps to make data ready to use for this exercise.

Reason for Selection Protected natural areas in urban environments provide urban residents a nearby place to connect with nature and offer refugia for some species. They help foster a conservation ethic by providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and also support ecosystem services like offsetting heat island effects (Greene and Millward 2017, Simpson 1998), water filtration, stormwater retention, and more (Hoover and Hopton 2019). In addition, parks, greenspace, and greenways can help improve physical and psychological health in communities (Gies 2006). Urban park size complements the equitable access to potential parks indicator by capturing the value of existing parks.Input DataSoutheast Blueprint 2024 extentFWS National Realty Tracts, accessed 12-13-2023Protected Areas Database of the United States(PAD-US):PAD-US 3.0 national geodatabase -Combined Proclamation Marine Fee Designation Easement, accessed 12-6-20232020 Census Urban Areas from the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification; download the data, read more about how urban areas were redefined following the 2020 censusOpenStreetMap data “multipolygons” layer, accessed 12-5-2023A polygon from this dataset is considered a beach if the value in the “natural” tag attribute is “beach”. Data for coastal states (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX) were downloaded in .pbf format and translated to an ESRI shapefile using R code. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under theOpen Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by theOpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Additional credit to OSM contributors. Read more onthe OSM copyright page.2021 National Land Cover Database (NLCD): Percentdevelopedimperviousness2023NOAA coastal relief model: volumes 2 (Southeast Atlantic), 3 (Florida and East Gulf of America), 4 (Central Gulf of America), and 5 (Western Gulf of America), accessed 3-27-2024Mapping StepsCreate a seamless vector layer to constrain the extent of the urban park size indicator to inland and nearshore marine areas <10 m in depth. The deep offshore areas of marine parks do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture nearby opportunities for urban residents to connect with nature. Shallow areas are more accessible for recreational activities like snorkeling, which typically has a maximum recommended depth of 12-15 meters. This step mirrors the approach taken in the Caribbean version of this indicator.Merge all coastal relief model rasters (.nc format) together using QGIS “create virtual raster”.Save merged raster to .tif and import into ArcPro.Reclassify the NOAA coastal relief model data to assign areas with an elevation of land to -10 m a value of 1. Assign all other areas (deep marine) a value of 0.Convert the raster produced above to vector using the “RasterToPolygon” tool.Clip to 2024 subregions using “Pairwise Clip” tool.Break apart multipart polygons using “Multipart to single parts” tool.Hand-edit to remove deep marine polygon.Dissolve the resulting data layer.This produces a seamless polygon defining land and shallow marine areas.Clip the Census urban area layer to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Clip PAD-US 3.0 to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Remove the following areas from PAD-US 3.0, which are outside the scope of this indicator to represent parks:All School Trust Lands in Oklahoma and Mississippi (Loc Des = “School Lands” or “School Trust Lands”). These extensive lands are leased out and are not open to the public.All tribal and military lands (“Des_Tp” = "TRIBL" or “Des_Tp” = "MIL"). Generally, these lands are not intended for public recreational use.All BOEM marine lease blocks (“Own_Name” = "BOEM"). These Outer Continental Shelf lease blocks do not represent actively protected marine parks, but serve as the “legal definition for BOEM offshore boundary coordinates...for leasing and administrative purposes” (BOEM).All lands designated as “proclamation” (“Des_Tp” = "PROC"). These typically represent the approved boundary of public lands, within which land protection is authorized to occur, but not all lands within the proclamation boundary are necessarily currently in a conserved status.Retain only selected attribute fields from PAD-US to get rid of irrelevant attributes.Merged the filtered PAD-US layer produced above with the OSM beaches and FWS National Realty Tracts to produce a combined protected areas dataset.The resulting merged data layer contains overlapping polygons. To remove overlapping polygons, use the Dissolve function.Clip the resulting data layer to the inland and nearshore extent.Process all multipart polygons (e.g., separate parcels within a National Wildlife Refuge) to single parts (referred to in Arc software as an “explode”).Select all polygons that intersect the Census urban extent within 0.5 miles. We chose 0.5 miles to represent a reasonable walking distance based on input and feedback from park access experts. Assuming a moderate intensity walking pace of 3 miles per hour, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s physical activity guidelines, the 0.5 mi distance also corresponds to the 10-minute walk threshold used in the equitable access to potential parks indicator.Dissolve all the park polygons that were selected in the previous step.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (“explode”) again.Add a unique ID to the selected parks. This value will be used in a later step to join the parks to their buffers.Create a 0.5 mi (805 m) buffer ring around each park using the multiring plugin in QGIS. Ensure that “dissolve buffers” is disabled so that a single 0.5 mi buffer is created for each park.Assess the amount of overlap between the buffered park and the Census urban area using “overlap analysis”. This step is necessary to identify parks that do not intersect the urban area, but which lie within an urban matrix (e.g., Umstead Park in Raleigh, NC and Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve in Atlanta, GA). This step creates a table that is joined back to the park polygons using the UniqueID.Remove parks that had ≤10% overlap with the urban areas when buffered. This excludes mostly non-urban parks that do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture parks that provide nearby access for urban residents. Note: The 10% threshold is a judgement call based on testing which known urban parks and urban National Wildlife Refuges are captured at different overlap cutoffs and is intended to be as inclusive as possible.Calculate the GIS acres of each remaining park unit using the Add Geometry Attributes function.Buffer the selected parks by 15 m. Buffering prevents very small and narrow parks from being left out of the indicator when the polygons are converted to raster.Reclassify the parks based on their area into the 7 classes seen in the final indicator values below. These thresholds were informed by park classification guidelines from the National Recreation and Park Association, which classify neighborhood parks as 5-10 acres, community parks as 30-50 acres, and large urban parks as optimally 75+ acres (Mertes and Hall 1995).Assess the impervious surface composition of each park using the NLCD 2021 impervious layer and the Zonal Statistics “MEAN” function. Retain only the mean percent impervious value for each park.Extract only parks with a mean impervious pixel value <80%. This step excludes parks that do not meet the intent of the indicator to capture opportunities to connect with nature and offer refugia for species (e.g., the Superdome in New Orleans, LA, the Astrodome in Houston, TX, and City Plaza in Raleigh, NC).Extract again to the inland and nearshore extent.Export the final vector file to a shapefile and import to ArcGIS Pro.Convert the resulting polygons to raster using the ArcPy Feature to Raster function and the area class field.Assign a value of 0 to all other pixels in the Southeast Blueprint 2024 extent not already identified as an urban park in the mapping steps above. Zero values are intended to help users better understand the extent of this indicator and make it perform better in online tools.Use the land and shallow marine layer and “extract by mask” tool to save the final version of this indicator.Add color and legend to raster attribute table.As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in theSoutheast Blueprint Data Downloadunder > 6_Code. Final indicator valuesIndicator values are assigned as follows:6= 75+ acre urban park5= 50 to <75 acre urban park4= 30 to <50 acre urban park3= 10 to <30 acre urban park2=5 to <10acreurbanpark1 = <5 acre urban park0 = Not identified as an urban parkKnown IssuesThis indicator does not include park amenities that influence how well the park serves people and should not be the only tool used for parks and recreation planning. Park standards should be determined at a local level to account for various community issues, values, needs, and available resources.This indicator includes some protected areas that are not open to the public and not typically thought of as “parks”, like mitigation lands, private easements, and private golf courses. While we experimented with excluding them using the public access attribute in PAD, due to numerous inaccuracies, this inadvertently removed protected lands that are known to be publicly accessible. As a result, we erred on the side of including the non-publicly accessible lands.The NLCD percent impervious layer contains classification inaccuracies. As a result, this indicator may exclude parks that are mostly natural because they are misclassified as mostly impervious. Conversely, this indicator may include parks that are mostly impervious because they are misclassified as mostly

The GIS database contains the data of aufeis (naleds) in the Kolyma River basin (Russia) from historical and nowadays sources, and complete ArcGIS 10.1/10.2 and Qgis 3* projects to view and analyze the data. All data and projects have WGS 1984 coordinate system (without projection). ArcGIS and Qgis projects contain two layers, such as Aufeis_kadastr (historical aufeis data collection, point objects) and Aufeis_Landsat (satellite-derived aufeis data collection, polygon objects). Historical data collection is created based on the Cadastre of aufeis (naled) of the North-East of the USSR (1958). Each aufeis was digitized as point feature by the inventory map (scale 1:2 000 000), or by topographic maps. Attributive data was obtained from the Cadastre of aufeis. According to the historical data, there were 1755 aufeis with a total area 1945.2 km² within the studied basin. Present-day aufeis dataset was created by Landsat-8 OLI images for the period 2013-2019. Each aufeis was delineated by satellite images as polygon. Cloud-free Landsat images are obtained immediately after snowmelt season (e.g. between May, 17 and June, 16), to detect the highest possible number of aufeis. Critical values of Normalized Difference Snow Index (NDSI) were used for semi-automated aufeis detection. However, a detailed expert-based verification was performed after automated procedure, to distinguish snow-covered areas from aufeis and cross-reference historical and satellite-based data collections. According to Landsat data, the number of aufeis reaches 2216, with their total area about 879.7 km². The difference between the Cadastre (1958) and the satellite-derived data may indicate significant changes of aufeis formation environments.

The GIS database contains the data of aufeis (naled) in the Yana River basin (Russia) from historical and nowadays sources, and complete ArcGIS 10.1/10.2 and Qgis 3* projects to view and analyze the data. All data and projects have WGS 1984 coordinate system (without projection). ArcGIS and Qgis projects contain two layers, such as Aufeis_kadastr (historical aufeis data collection, point objects) and Aufeis_Landsat (satellite-derived aufeis data collection, polygon objects). Historical data collection is created based on the Cadastre of aufeis (naled) of the North-East of the USSR (1958). Each aufeis was digitized as point feature by the inventory map (scale 1:2 000 000), or by topographic maps. Attributive data was obtained from the Cadastre of aufeis. According to the historical data, there were 381 aufeis with a total area 731.6 km² within the studied basin. Present-day aufeis dataset was created by Landsat-8 OLI images for the period 2013-2017. Each aufeis was delineated by satellite images as polygon. Cloud-free Landsat images are obtained immediately after snowmelt season (e.g. between May, 15 and June, 18), to detect the highest possible number of aufeis. Critical values of Normalized Difference Snow Index (NDSI) were used for semi-automated aufeis detection. However, a detailed expert-based verification was performed after automated procedure, to distinguish snow-covered areas from aufeis and cross-reference historical and satellite-based data collections. According to Landsat data, the number of aufeis reaches 571, with their total area about 432 km². The difference between the Cadastre (1958) and the satellite-derived data may indicate significant changes of aufeis formation environments.