BackgroundLandscaping studies related to public health education in India do not exclusively focus on the most common Masters of Public Health (MPH) program. The field of public health faces challenges due to the absence of a professional council, resulting in fragmented documentation of these programs. This study was undertaken to map all MPH programs offered across various institutes in India in terms of their geographic distribution, accreditation status, and administration patterns.MethodologyAn exhaustive internet search using various keywords was conducted to identify all MPH programs offered in India. Websites were explored for their details. A data extraction tool was developed for recording demographic and other data. Information was extracted from these websites as per the tool and collated in a matrix. Geographic coordinates obtained from Google Maps, and QGIS software facilitated map generation.ResultsThe search identified 116 general and 13 MPH programs with specializations offered by different universities and institutes across India. India is divided into six zones, and the distribution of MPH programs in these zones is as follows, central zone has 20 programs; the east zone has 11; the north zone has 35; the north-east zone has 07; the south zone has 26; and the west zone has 17 MPH programs. While 107 are university grants commission (UGC) approved universities and institutes, only 46 MPH programs are conducted by both UGC approved and National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) accredited universities and institutes. Five universities are categorized as central universities; 22 are deemed universities; 51 are private universities; and 29 are state universities. Nine are considered institutions of national importance by the UGC, and four institutions are recognized as institutions of eminence. All general MPH programs span 2 years and are administered under various faculties, with only 27 programs being conducted within dedicated schools or centers of public health.ConclusionThe MPH programs in India show considerable diversity in their geographic distribution, accreditation status, and administration pattern.

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.

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

The data are derived from interpretation of seismic reflection profiles within the offshore Corinth Rift, Greece (the Gulf of Corinth) integrated with IODP scientific ocean drilling borehole data from IODP Expedition 381 (McNeill et al., 2019a, 2019b). The data include rift fault coordinate (location, geometry) information and slip rate and extension rate information for the major faults. Seismic reflection data were published in Taylor et al. (2011) and in Nixon et al. (2016). Preliminary fault interpretations and rate data, prior to IODP drilling, were published in Nixon et al. (2016). Details of datasets: The data can be viewed in GIS software (ArcGIS, QGIS) or the Excel and .dbf files can be used for viewing of rate data and import of fault coordinates into other software. The 4 folders are for different time periods with shape files for the N-Dipping and S-Dipping Faults in the offshore Corinth Rift and respective slip and extension (horizontal) rates. The shapefiles are digitised fault traces for the basement offsetting faults, picked from the Multichannel Seismic Data collected by the R/V Maurice Ewing. Fault traces are segmented and each segment has an average throw (vertical) rate (Tavg) in mm/yr. The rates for the segments are averages based on measurements at the ends of each segment. The major fault trace segments also have slip-rates (slip_rate) and extension-rates (ext_rate or extension_) in mm/yr. All rates as well as the names for major faults can be located in the attribute table of the shape files along with X- and Y-coordinates. The coordinate system is WGS84 UTM Zone 34N. The shape files can be loaded into a GIS (ArcGIS, QGIS etc.) allowing mapping and visualization of the fault traces and their activity rates. In addition, the attribute tables are .dbf files found within each folder. These have also been provided as .xlsx (Excel) files which include the fault coordinate information, and slip rates and extension rates along the major faults. References McNeill, L.C., Shillington, D.J., Carter, G.D.O., and the Expedition 381 Participants, 2019a. Corinth Active Rift Development. Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program, 381: College Station, TX (International Ocean Discovery Program). McNeill, L.C., Shillington, D.J., et al., 2019b, High-resolution record reveals climate-driven environmental and sedimentary changes in an active rift, Scientific Reports, 9, 3116. Nixon, C.W., McNeill, L.C., Bull, J.M., Bell, R.E., Gawthorpe, R.L., Henstock, T.J., Christodoulou, D., Ford, M., Taylor, B., Sakellariou, S. et al., 2016. Rapid spatiotemporal variations in rift structure during development of the Corinth Rift, central Greece. Tectonics, 35, 1225–1248. Taylor, B., J. R. Weiss, A. M. Goodliffe, M. Sachpazi, M. Laigle, and A. Hirn (2011), The structures, stratigraphy and evolution of the Gulf of Corinth Rift, Greece, Geophys. J. Int., 185(3), 1189–1219.

Data and derived products used in Rutishauser et al., “Radar sounding survey over Devon Ice Cap indicates the potential for a diverse hypersaline subglacial hydrological environment”, accepted for publication, The Cryosphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2021-220 Corresponding author: rutishauser.anja@gmail.com Description of datasets: ------------------------------------------ 2018_DIC_UTIG.IR2HI1B.kml Geolocation of the SRH1 profile lines. Coordinates in EPSG: 4326 - WGS 84 (latitude, longitude) ------------------------------------------ 2018_DIC_UTIG.IR2HI1B.tgz HiCARS 2 L1B echo strength profiles (radargrams) in NetCDF format. The naming of the files has the structure IR2HI1B_YYYYDOY_PST_x (e.g. IR2HI1B_2018153_DEV_JKB2t_Y87b_000.nc), where YYYY is the survey year (e.g. 2018), DOY is the survey day of the year (e.g. 153), PST is the profile name (e.g. DEV_JKB2t_Y87b), and x is the segment number if the profile was split in two (e.g. 000). For each profile, a PDF file showing the profile location and the radargram is included. ------------------------------------------ 2018_DIC_UTIG.Level2.tgz Level 2 datasets for each profile, organized in the following folders: 2018_DIC_UTIG.ILUTP2: Laser altimeter geolocated surface elevation 2018_DIC_UTIG.IR2HI2: HiCARS 2 unfocused (pik1) geolocated ice thickness, ice surface elevation, bed elevation, surface- and bed reflection coefficients, and aircraft roll 2018_DIC_UTIG.IRHFOC2: HiCARS 2 focused (foc1) geolocated ice thickness, ice surface elevation, bed elevation, surface- and bed reflection coefficients, and aircraft roll 2018_DIC_UTIG.IRSPC2: HiCARS 2 derived basal interface specularity content ------------------------------------------ Devon_basal_ice_temperature.tif: Modeled basal ice temperature [ºC] using a 1D advection diffusion model. 500 m grid cell size, coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. ------------------------------------------ Devon_bedrockDEM.tif: Digital elevation model (DEM) of the bedrock topography beneath Devon Ice Cap [m asl.]. 500 m grid cell size, coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. ------------------------------------------ Devon_gridded_RMSD_bedrock.tif: Root mean square deviation (RMDS) of the bedrock topography [m]. The RMSD was computed along each profile line, then interpolated on a 500x500m grid using the QGIS GDAL moving average grid interpolation. 500 m grid cell size, coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. ------------------------------------------ Devon_gridded_specularity.tif: Specularity content from along the profile lines interpolated on a 500x500m grid using the QGIS GDAL moving average grid interpolation. 500 m grid cell size, coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. ------------------------------------------ Devon_ice_thickness.tif: Gridded ice thickness [m] generated by subtracting the bedrock DEM from ice surface elevations derived from the ArcticDEM, Polar Geospatial Center from DigitalGlobe Inc. imagery. 500 m grid cell size, coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. ------------------------------------------ Devon_modeled_Geology.zip Devon_modeled_subglacial_geology.tif: Map of the projected geological units beneath Devon Ice Cap. The assigned numbers correspond to the following geological units: 1: pPe, 2: Cm-cf, 3: Oe, 4: Ocb, 5: Oct. Details on the geological units can be found in (Harrison et al., 2016; Mayr, 1980; Thorsteinsson & Mayr, 1987). 500 m grid cell size, coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. {pPe, Oe, Oct, Ocb,Cm_rb}_Model.stl: 3D geometry of the modeled geological units beneath Devon Ice Cap, originally published in (Rutishauser et al., 2018). Coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. Devon_load_geology_stl_files.py: Python script to load and plot the 3D geology layers in the .stl files. ------------------------------------------ Devon_subgl_hydraulic_head.tif: Subglacial hydraulic head [m] beneath Devon Ice Cap. 500 m grid cell size, coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. ------------------------------------------ Devon_subgl_hydraulic_slope.tif Slope [º] of the subglacial hydraulic head beneath Devon Ice Cap. 500 m grid cell size, coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. ------------------------------------------ Devon_subgl_lakes_brine_network.zip Devon_subgl_lake_outline.shp: Shoreline of the subglacial lakes beneath Devon Ice Cap (identified in this study). Coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. Devon_brine_network_outline.shp: Outlines of the mapped subglacial brine network beneath Devon Ice Cap. Coordinates in EPSG: 32617 - WGS 84 / UTM zone 17N. ------------------------------------------ Devon_subgl_water_routes.zip Devon_modeled_subgl_water_routes_{1, 2, 3}std.tif: Modeled subglacial water routes derived via application of a flow accumulation algorithm to the hydraulic head. The model is run 1000 times with normally distributed random errors of 1, 2 and 3 stand...

Effective population size (Ne) is a particularly useful metric for conservation as it affects genetic drift, inbreeding and adaptive potential within populations. Current guidelines recommend a minimum Ne of 50 and 500 to avoid short-term inbreeding and to preserve long-term adaptive potential, respectively. However, the extent to which wild populations reach these thresholds globally has not been investigated, nor has the relationship between Ne and human activities. Through a quantitative review, we generated a dataset with 4610 georeferenced Ne estimates from 3829 unique populations, extracted from 723 articles. These data show that certain taxonomic groups are less likely to meet 50/500 thresholds and are disproportionately impacted by human activities; plant, mammal, and amphibian populations had a <54% probability of reaching = 50 and a <9% probability of reaching = 500. Populations listed as being of conservation concern according to the IUCN Red List had a smaller median than unlisted populations, and this was consistent across all taxonomic groups. was reduced in areas with a greater Global Human Footprint, especially for amphibians, birds, and mammals, however relationships varied between taxa. We also highlight several considerations for future works, including the role that gene flow and subpopulation structure plays in the estimation of in wild populations, and the need for finer-scale taxonomic analyses. Our findings provide guidance for more specific thresholds based on Ne and help prioritize assessment of populations from taxa most at risk of failing to meet conservation thresholds. Methods Literature search, screening, and data extraction A primary literature search was conducted using ISI Web of Science Core Collection and any articles that referenced two popular single-sample Ne estimation software packages: LDNe (Waples & Do, 2008), and NeEstimator v2 (Do et al., 2014). The initial search included 4513 articles published up to the search date of May 26, 2020. Articles were screened for relevance in two steps, first based on title and abstract, and then based on the full text. For each step, a consistency check was performed using 100 articles to ensure they were screened consistently between reviewers (n = 6). We required a kappa score (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2020) of ³ 0.6 in order to proceed with screening of the remaining articles. Articles were screened based on three criteria: (1) Is an estimate of Ne or Nb reported; (2) for a wild animal or plant population; (3) using a single-sample genetic estimation method. Further details on the literature search and article screening are found in the Supplementary Material (Fig. S1). We extracted data from all studies retained after both screening steps (title and abstract; full text). Each line of data entered in the database represents a single estimate from a population. Some populations had multiple estimates over several years, or from different estimation methods (see Table S1), and each of these was entered on a unique row in the database. Data on N̂e, N̂b, or N̂c were extracted from tables and figures using WebPlotDigitizer software version 4.3 (Rohatgi, 2020). A full list of data extracted is found in Table S2. Data Filtering After the initial data collation, correction, and organization, there was a total of 8971 Ne estimates (Fig. S1). We used regression analyses to compare Ne estimates on the same populations, using different estimation methods (LD, Sibship, and Bayesian), and found that the R2 values were very low (R2 values of <0.1; Fig. S2 and Fig. S3). Given this inconsistency, and the fact that LD is the most frequently used method in the literature (74% of our database), we proceeded with only using the LD estimates for our analyses. We further filtered the data to remove estimates where no sample size was reported or no bias correction (Waples, 2006) was applied (see Fig. S6 for more details). Ne is sometimes estimated to be infinity or negative within a population, which may reflect that a population is very large (i.e., where the drift signal-to-noise ratio is very low), and/or that there is low precision with the data due to small sample size or limited genetic marker resolution (Gilbert & Whitlock, 2015; Waples & Do, 2008; Waples & Do, 2010) We retained infinite and negative estimates only if they reported a positive lower confidence interval (LCI), and we used the LCI in place of a point estimate of Ne or Nb. We chose to use the LCI as a conservative proxy for in cases where a point estimate could not be generated, given its relevance for conservation (Fraser et al., 2007; Hare et al., 2011; Waples & Do 2008; Waples 2023). We also compared results using the LCI to a dataset where infinite or negative values were all assumed to reflect very large populations and replaced the estimate with an arbitrary large value of 9,999 (for reference in the LCI dataset only 51 estimates, or 0.9%, had an or > 9999). Using this 9999 dataset, we found that the main conclusions from the analyses remained the same as when using the LCI dataset, with the exception of the HFI analysis (see discussion in supplementary material; Table S3, Table S4 Fig. S4, S5). We also note that point estimates with an upper confidence interval of infinity (n = 1358) were larger on average (mean = 1380.82, compared to 689.44 and 571.64, for estimates with no CIs or with an upper boundary, respectively). Nevertheless, we chose to retain point estimates with an upper confidence interval of infinity because accounting for them in the analyses did not alter the main conclusions of our study and would have significantly decreased our sample size (Fig. S7, Table S5). We also retained estimates from populations that were reintroduced or translocated from a wild source (n = 309), whereas those from captive sources were excluded during article screening (see above). In exploratory analyses, the removal of these data did not influence our results, and many of these populations are relevant to real-world conservation efforts, as reintroductions and translocations are used to re-establish or support small, at-risk populations. We removed estimates based on duplication of markers (keeping estimates generated from SNPs when studies used both SNPs and microsatellites), and duplication of software (keeping estimates from NeEstimator v2 when studies used it alongside LDNe). Spatial and temporal replication were addressed with two separate datasets (see Table S6 for more information): the full dataset included spatially and temporally replicated samples, while these two types of replication were removed from the non-replicated dataset. Finally, for all populations included in our final datasets, we manually extracted their protection status according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Taxa were categorized as “Threatened” (Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered), “Nonthreatened” (Least Concern, Near Threatened), or “N/A” (Data Deficient, Not Evaluated). Mapping and Human Footprint Index (HFI) All populations were mapped in QGIS using the coordinates extracted from articles. The maps were created using a World Behrmann equal area projection. For the summary maps, estimates were grouped into grid cells with an area of 250,000 km2 (roughly 500 km x 500 km, but the dimensions of each cell vary due to distortions from the projection). Within each cell, we generated the count and median of Ne. We used the Global Human Footprint dataset (WCS & CIESIN, 2005) to generate a value of human influence (HFI) for each population at its geographic coordinates. The footprint ranges from zero (no human influence) to 100 (maximum human influence). Values were available in 1 km x 1 km grid cell size and were projected over the point estimates to assign a value of human footprint to each population. The human footprint values were extracted from the map into a spreadsheet to be used for statistical analyses. Not all geographic coordinates had a human footprint value associated with them (i.e., in the oceans and other large bodies of water), therefore marine fishes were not included in our HFI analysis. Overall, 3610 Ne estimates in our final dataset had an associated footprint value.

Georeferenced (to WGS1984) and cropped set of about 820 historic maps of Burma at a scale of 1 inch per mile (63,360) covering about 75% of the country. Those topographic maps, originally produced and published by the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India between 1899 and 1946, have been scanned and shared with the public as part of the "Old Survey Of India Maps” Community under a CC BY 4.0 International Licence. Many of these maps are reprints of earlier maps produced before the war. Most mapsheets are early editions (edition 1 or edition 2).

Each of the 820 map sheet scans was georeferenced using the Latitude-Longitude corner coordinates in Everest 1830 projection. Those map sheets were cropped, keeping only the map area - to allow a seamless mosaic without the mapframe overlapping adjacent map sheets when several map sheets are put together in a GIS. Those cropped map sheets were projected from Everest 1830 to WGS1984 (EPSG4326) - standard GPS - projection to make them easier to use and combine with other GIS data.

Those map sheets can be loaded directly in any GIS such as QGIS or ESRI ArcGIS as well as Google Earth.

• The mm_OI_JBv2024 folder contains the cropped end georeferenced map sheets in jpg-format as well as accompagning georeference and metadata incl.
  
  • The mm_OI_JBv2024_kmlLinks contains kml files to easily load the mapsheets into Google Earth
  • The mm_historicOI_EPSG4326.gdb contains an ESRI mosaic dataset to easily load all mapsheets into ArcGIS
• The mm_OI_JBv2024_scanMaps folder contains the uncropped original map scans (renamed though) in jpg-format.
• The mm_topoOI_JBv7_masterlist.xlsx is a masterlist cataloguing all map sheets for easier use and matching them with the original source files as shared as part of the "Old Survey Of India Maps" (e.g. to identify new mapsheets should new maps be released)
• The indexMaps folder contains small scale index maps to locate the map sheets using their map sheet Grid-Letter-nomenclature

All georeferenced map scans are based on maps shared by John Brown via Zenodo

• https://zenodo.org/records/8040798 (63k Maps of Burma, version 7, Published June 14, 2023)
• https://zenodo.org/records/10463372 (63k Maps of Burma--additional 1--20240105, version 1, Published January 5, 2024)

The file naming convention is to first give the number of the 4 degree x 4 degree block followed by the letter (A to P) of the sixteen 1 degree x 1 degree blocks in each 4 degree block eg. 38 D, and this is followed by a number from 1 to 16 to indicate the number of the map in the 1 degree block.

This Number Letter Number designation is followed by the map series type either OI (contains a LCC grid) or OILatLon (only has a Lat-Lon grid), followed by the edition and year of the edition, followed by the date of publication/print. If the information is not available an "X" (for edition) or "0000" (for an unknown year) is used. A best-guess approach was used if the edition and print year and version information was ambiguous.

The files as shared via the "Old Survey Of India Maps" have been renamed to standardize the file naming, sometimes correcting them and to make them unique in the case several editions of the same map sheet were available.

A topographical index produced by the Survey of India is provided to assist the viewer in selecting a particular map of interest.

This dataset consists of shapefiles that correspond to the model grids used in the CSIRO eReefs hydrodynamic and biogeochemical models. These models store their results in multi-dimensional NetCDF files using a curvilinear grid. This dataset corresponds to an extract from these files converting the curvilinear grid into polygons in a shapefile. This dataset only captures the structure of the grid, not the time series data generated by the model. It contains shapefiles of the 4 km model grid (GBR4) and the 1 km grid (GBR1) as well as shapefiles for the bounding polygon of all the 'wet' cells in the model. This dataset is useful for visualising the extent of the various CSIRO eReefs models.

This dataset contains shapefiles for the 1 km and 4 km eReefs grids, derived from version 2.0 of the eReefs Hydrodynamic model. It contains shapefiles of the individual grid cells and the bounds. It also includes a low resolution version of the bounds suitable for detecting whether locations are inside the eReefs model extent.

The grid shapefile contains polygons representing each of the grid cells. An attribution is associated with each polygon corresponding to the depth used in the model. This can be used to show where the model has 'wet' cells.


Methods:

1. Representative data files for the GBR1 and GBR4 hydrodynamic version model were downloaded from the public repository of eReefs model data on NCI. The two common grids GBR1 and GBR4 are used over the model time series and for the both the hydrodynamic and biogeochemical models. We therefore just chose one model NetCDF for each model resolution. These were taken from the hydrodynamic model version 2.

2. The grid was converted to shapefiles using an R script that calculated the coordinates corners of each curvilinear pixel in the grid based on the centroids of the neighbouring pixels.

3. The grid boundary shapefiles were calculated using the merge GIS operation in QGIS after selecting all the 'wet' cells, where the depth was greater than 0.

Full step-by-step instructions and scripts are available to reproduce this dataset from github (https://github.com/eatlas/GBR_AIMS_eReefs-grid-shapefiles).


Format:

Shapefile


Data Dictionary:

SP_ID: Row and column indices in the NetCDF grid joined together
depth: Depth used in the eReefs model in metres. This is based on the botz variable in the original NetCDF eReefs model data file.
row: Row index in the NetCDF tables for this pixel.
col: Column index in the NetCDF tables for this pixel.


Data Location:

This dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: X:\data\custodian\2018-22-eReefs\GBR_AIMS_eReefs-grid-shapefiles
Source code for reproducing this dataset is available on github (https://github.com/eatlas/GBR_AIMS_eReefs-grid-shapefiles).

Abstract

The dataset is a geodatabase focusing on the distribution of freshwater fish species in Northern Greece. The study area encompasses various lakes and rivers within the regions of Thrace, Eastern, Central, and Western Macedonia, and Epirus. It classifies fish species into three categories based on their conservation status according to the IUCN Red List: Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable. The data analysis reveals that the study area is characterized by high fish diversity, particularly in certain ecosystems such as the Evros River, Strymonas River, Aliakmonas River, Axios River, Volvi Lake, Nestos River, and Prespa Lake. These ecosystems serve as important habitats for various fish species. Mapping of the dataset shows the geographic distribution of threatened fish species, indicating that Northern Greece is a hotspot for species facing extinction risks. Overall, the dataset provides valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and conservationists in understanding the status of fish fauna in Northern Greece and developing strategies for the protection and preservation of these important ecosystems.

Methods

Data Collection: The dataset was collected through a combination of field surveys, literature reviews, and the compilation of existing data from various reliable sources. Here's an overview of how the dataset was collected and processed:

• Freshwater Fishes and Lampreys of Greece: An Annotated Checklist
• The Red Book of Endangered Animals of Greece
• The "Red List of Threatened Species"
• The study "Monitoring and Evaluation of the Conservation Status of Fish Fauna Species of Community Interest in Greece"
• The international online fish database FishBase

Data Digitization and Georeferencing: To create a comprehensive database, we digitized and georeferenced the collected data from various sources. This involved converting information from papers, reports, and surveys into digital formats and associating them with specific geographic coordinates. Georeferencing allowed us to map the distribution of fish species within the study area accurately.

Data Integration: The digitized and georeferenced data were then integrated into a unified geodatabase. The geodatabase is a central repository that contains both spatial and descriptive data, facilitating further analysis and interpretation of the dataset.

Data Analysis: We analyzed the collected data to assess the distribution of fish species in Northern Greece, evaluate their conservation status according to the IUCN Red List categories, and identify the threats they face in their respective ecosystems. The analysis involved spatial mapping to visualize the distribution patterns of threatened fish species.

Data Validation: To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the dataset, we cross-referenced the information from different sources and validated it against known facts about the species and their habitats. This process helped to eliminate any discrepancies or errors in the dataset.

Interpretation and Findings: Finally, we interpreted the analyzed data and derived key findings about the diversity and conservation status of freshwater fish species in Northern Greece. The results were presented in the research paper, along with maps and visualizations to communicate the spatial patterns effectively.

Overall, the dataset represents a comprehensive and well-processed collection of information about fish fauna in the study area. It combines both spatial and descriptive data, providing valuable insights for understanding the distribution and conservation needs of freshwater fish populations in Northern Greece.

Usage notes

The data included with the submission is stored in a geodatabase format, specifically an ESRI Geodatabase (.gdb). A geodatabase is a container that can hold various types of geospatial data, including feature classes, attribute tables, and raster datasets. It provides a structured and organized way to store and manage geographic information.

To open and work with the geodatabase, you will need GIS software that supports ESRI Geodatabase formats. The primary software for accessing and manipulating ESRI Geodatabases is ESRI ArcGIS, which is a proprietary GIS software suite. However, there are open-source alternatives available that can also work with Geodatabase files.

Open-source software such as QGIS has support for reading and interacting with Geodatabase files. By using QGIS, you can access the data stored in the geodatabase and perform various geospatial analyses and visualizations. QGIS is a powerful and widely used open-source Geographic Information System that provides similar functionality to ESRI ArcGIS.

For tabular data within the geodatabase, you can export the tables as CSV files and open them with software like Microsoft Excel or the open-source alternative, LibreOffice Calc, for further analysis and manipulation.

Overall, the data provided in the submission is in a geodatabase format, and you can use ESRI ArcGIS or open-source alternatives like QGIS to access and work with the geospatial data it contains.

Graduate tracer studies provide an avenue for assessing the impact of residency training on the distribution and access to specialty care and exploring job and professional satisfaction of alumnus. This study examined how the Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) clinical residency training program influenced the spatial distribution and career paths of specialists. We conducted a mixed methods study involving an online survey and 12 in-depth interviews (IDIs) from June to September 2022. The online survey was distributed to a convenient sample of clinical residency alumnus from MUST via email and Whatsapp groups. Alumnus were mapped across the countries of current work in QGIS (version 3.16.3) using GPS coordinates. Descriptive and thematic analyses were also conducted. Ninety-five alumni (34.3%) responded to the tracer survey. The majority were males (80%), aged 31–40 years (69%), and Ugandans (72%). Most graduated after 2018 (83%) as obstetricians/gynecologists (38%) and general surgeons (19%). There was uneven distribution of specialists across Uganda and the East-African community—with significant concentration in urban cities of Uganda at specialized hospitals and academic institutions. Residency training helped prepare and equip alumnus with competencies relevant to their current work tasks (48%) and other spheres of life (45%). All respondents were currently employed, with the majority engaged in clinical practice (82%) and had obtained their first employment within six months after graduation (76%). The qualitative interviews revealed the reported ease in finding jobs after the training and the relevance of the training in enhancing the alumnus’ ability to impact those they serve in teaching, research, management, and clinical care. Graduates cited low payment, limited resources, and slow career advancement concerns. Residency training improves the graduates’ professional/career growth and the quality of health care services. Strategic specialty training addressing imbalances in subspecialties and rural areas coverage could optimize access to specialist services.

This dataset contains shapefile boundaries for CA State, counties and places from the US Census Bureau's 2023 MAF/TIGER database. Current geography in the 2023 TIGER/Line Shapefiles generally reflects the boundaries of governmental units in effect as of January 1, 2023.

GPS location data

We collected GPS data from April 2014 to July 2016 for 6 male and 5 female elephants, each in different herds, collared with Vectronic GPS collars. The collars produced hourly fixes of the elephants’ locations, resulting in ca.19,000 fixes per elephant. We downloaded data using the Vectronic GPS PLUS X Collar Manager. When there were GPS reception issues resulting in missing data, we coded these as NA values. Each elephant included in the study produced data with less than 25% missing values.

Remote sensing data collection

To create habitat feature shape files, we used Landsat 8 band combinations (Data available from the U.S. Geological Survey) and the Semi-automatic Classification Plugin (Congedo, 2014) available in the open source Quantum GIS Geographic Information System program (Quantum GIS Development Team, 2016). We calculated overlaps between downloaded GPS coordinates and habitat features using the ‘NNJoin’ QGIS Plugin (Tveite, 2015), resulting in dummy vari...

This layer presents the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zones of the world. The layer symbolizes the 6-degree wide zones employed for UTM projection.To download the data for this layer as a layer package for use in ArcGIS desktop applications, refer to World UTM Zones Grid.

Summary:

The files contained herein represent green roof footprints in NYC visible in 2016 high-resolution orthoimagery of NYC (described at https://github.com/CityOfNewYork/nyc-geo-metadata/blob/master/Metadata/Metadata_AerialImagery.md). Previously documented green roofs were aggregated in 2016 from multiple data sources including from NYC Department of Parks and Recreation and the NYC Department of Environmental Protection, greenroofs.com, and greenhomenyc.org. Footprints of the green roof surfaces were manually digitized based on the 2016 imagery, and a sample of other roof types were digitized to create a set of training data for classification of the imagery. A Mahalanobis distance classifier was employed in Google Earth Engine, and results were manually corrected, removing non-green roofs that were classified and adjusting shape/outlines of the classified green roofs to remove significant errors based on visual inspection with imagery across multiple time points. Ultimately, these initial data represent an estimate of where green roofs existed as of the imagery used, in 2016.

These data are associated with an existing GitHub Repository, https://github.com/tnc-ny-science/NYC_GreenRoofMapping, and as needed and appropriate pending future work, versioned updates will be released here.

Terms of Use:

The Nature Conservancy and co-authors of this work shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. Any sale, distribution, loan, or offering for use of these digital data, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the approval of The Nature Conservancy and co-authors. The use of these data to produce other GIS products and services with the intent to sell for a profit is prohibited without the written consent of The Nature Conservancy and co-authors. All parties receiving these data must be informed of these restrictions. Authors of this work shall be acknowledged as data contributors to any reports or other products derived from these data.

Associated Files:

As of this release, the specific files included here are:

GreenRoofData2016_20180917.geojson is in the human-readable, GeoJSON format, in geographic coordinates (Lat/Long, WGS84; EPSG 4263).

GreenRoofData2016_20180917.gpkg is in the GeoPackage format, which is an Open Standard readable by most GIS software including Esri products (tested on ArcMap 10.3.1 and multiple versions of QGIS). This dataset is in the New York State Plan Coordinate System (units in feet) for the Long Island Zone, North American Datum 1983, EPSG 2263.

GreenRoofData2016_20180917_Shapefile.zip is a zipped folder containing a Shapefile and associated files. Please note that some field names were truncated due to limitations of Shapefiles, but columns are in the same order as for other files and in the same order as listed below. This dataset is in the New York State Plan Coordinate System (units in feet) for the Long Island Zone, North American Datum 1983, EPSG 2263.

GreenRoofData2016_20180917.csv is a comma-separated values file (CSV) with coordinates for centroids for the green roofs stored in the table itself. This allows for easily opening the data in a tool like spreadsheet software (e.g., Microsoft Excel) or a text editor.

Column Information for the datasets:

Some, but not all fields were joined to the green roof footprint data based on building footprint and tax lot data; those datasets are embedded as hyperlinks below.

fid - Unique identifier

bin - NYC Building ID Number based on overlap between green roof areas and a building footprint dataset for NYC from August, 2017. (Newer building footprint datasets do not have linkages to the tax lot identifier (bbl), thus this older dataset was used). The most current building footprint dataset should be available at: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Housing-Development/Building-Footprints/nqwf-w8eh. Associated metadata for fields from that dataset are available at https://github.com/CityOfNewYork/nyc-geo-metadata/blob/master/Metadata/Metadata_BuildingFootprints.md.

bbl - Boro Block and Lot number as a single string. This field is a tax lot identifier for NYC, which can be tied to the Digital Tax Map (http://gis.nyc.gov/taxmap/map.htm) and PLUTO/MapPLUTO (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwn-pluto-mappluto.page). Metadata for fields pulled from PLUTO/MapPLUTO can be found in the PLUTO Data Dictionary found on the aforementioned page. All joins to this bbl were based on MapPLUTO version 18v1.

gr_area - Total area of the footprint of the green roof as per this data layer, in square feet, calculated using the projected coordinate system (EPSG 2263).

bldg_area - Total area of the footprint of the associated building, in square feet, calculated using the projected coordinate system (EPSG 2263).

prop_gr - Proportion of the building covered by green roof according to this layer (gr_area/bldg_area).

cnstrct_yr - Year the building was constructed, pulled from the Building Footprint data.

doitt_id - An identifier for the building assigned by the NYC Dept. of Information Technology and Telecommunications, pulled from the Building Footprint Data.

heightroof - Height of the roof of the associated building, pulled from the Building Footprint Data.

feat_code - Code describing the type of building, pulled from the Building Footprint Data.

groundelev - Lowest elevation at the building level, pulled from the Building Footprint Data.

qa - Flag indicating a positive QA/QC check (using multiple types of imagery); all data in this dataset should have 'Good'

notes - Any notes about the green roof taken during visual inspection of imagery; for example, it was noted if the green roof appeared to be missing in newer imagery, or if there were parts of the roof for which it was unclear whether there was green roof area or potted plants.

classified - Flag indicating whether the green roof was detected image classification. (1 for yes, 0 for no)

digitized - Flag indicating whether the green roof was digitized prior to image classification and used as training data. (1 for yes, 0 for no)

newlyadded - Flag indicating whether the green roof was detected solely by visual inspection after the image classification and added. (1 for yes, 0 for no)

original_source - Indication of what the original data source was, whether a specific website, agency such as NYC Dept. of Parks and Recreation (DPR), or NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP). Multiple sources are separated by a slash.

address - Address based on MapPLUTO, joined to the dataset based on bbl.

borough - Borough abbreviation pulled from MapPLUTO.

ownertype - Owner type field pulled from MapPLUTO.

zonedist1 - Zoning District 1 type pulled from MapPLUTO.

spdist1 - Special District 1 pulled from MapPLUTO.

bbl_fixed - Flag to indicate whether bbl was manually fixed. Since tax lot data may have changed slightly since the release of the building footprint data used in this work, a small percentage of bbl codes had to be manually updated based on overlay between the green roof footprint and the MapPLUTO data, when no join was feasible based on the bbl code from the building footprint data. (1 for yes, 0 for no)

For GreenRoofData2016_20180917.csv there are two additional columns, representing the coordinates of centroids in geographic coordinates (Lat/Long, WGS84; EPSG 4263):

xcoord - Longitude in decimal degrees.

ycoord - Latitude in decimal degrees.

Acknowledgements:

This work was primarily supported through funding from the J.M. Kaplan Fund, awarded to the New York City Program of The Nature Conservancy, with additional support from the New York Community Trust, through New York City Audubon and the Green Roof Researchers Alliance.