Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. ESRI Experience Builder Regions were summarized within ESRI Experience Builder Regions - copy

ArcGIS is a platform, and the platform is extending to the web. ArcGIS Online offers shared content, and has become a living atlas of the world. Ready-to-use curated content is published by Esri, Partners, and Users, and Esri is getting the ball rolling by offering authoritative data layers and tools.Specifically for Natural Resources data, Esri is offering foundational data useful for biogeographic analysis, natural resource management, land use planning and conservation. Some of the layers available are Land Cover, Wilderness Areas, Soils Range Production, Soils Frost Free Days, Watershed Delineation, Slope. The layers are available as Image Services that are analysis-ready and Geoprocessing Services that extract data for download and perform analysis.We've made large strides with online analysis. The latest release of ArcGIS Online's map viewer allows you to perform analysis on ArcGIS Online. Some of the currently available analysis tools are Find Hot Spots, Create Buffers, Summarize Within, Summarize Nearby. In addition, we've created Ready-to-use Esri hosted analysis tools that run on Esri hosted data. These are in Beta, and they include Watershed Delineation, Viewshed, Profile, and Summarize Elevation.

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. PA Survey Locations were summarized within PA Counties

Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses are an essential part of natural resource management and research. Calculating and summarizing data within intersecting GIS layers is common practice for analysts and researchers. However, the various tools and steps required to complete this process are slow and tedious, requiring many tools iterating over hundreds, or even thousands of datasets. USGS scientists will combine a series of ArcGIS geoprocessing capabilities with custom scripts to create tools that will calculate, summarize, and organize large amounts of data that can span many temporal and spatial scales with minimal user input. The tools work with polygons, lines, points, and rasters to calculate relevant summary data and combine them into a single output table that can be easily incorporated into statistical analyses. These tools are useful for anyone interested in using an automated script to quickly compile summary information within all areas of interest in a GIS dataset

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. GLOBEObserver_TreeHeights_2019Mar20_to2020Nov6 were summarized within Administrative Forest Boundaries

The nine-banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) is the only species of Armadillo in the United States and alters ecosystems by excavating extensive burrows used by many other wildlife species. Relatively little is known about its habitat use or population densities, particularly in developed areas, which may be key to facilitating its range expansion. We evaluated Armadillo occupancy and density in relation to anthropogenic and landcover variables in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas along an urban to rural gradient. Armadillo detection probability was best predicted by temperature (positively) and precipitation (negatively). Contrary to expectations, occupancy probability of Armadillos was best predicted by slope (negatively) and elevation (positively) rather than any landcover or anthropogenic variables. Armadillo density varied considerably between sites (ranging from a mean of 4.88 – 46.20 Armadillos per km2) but was not associated with any environmental or anthropogenic variables. Methods Site Selection Our study took place in Northwest Arkansas, USA, in the greater Fayetteville metropolitan area. We deployed trail cameras (Spypoint Force Dark (Spypoint Inc, Victoriaville, Quebec, Canada) and Browning Strikeforce XD cameras (Browning, Morgan, Utah, USA) over the course of two winter seasons, December 2020-March 2021, and November 2021-March 2022. We sampled 10 study sites in year one, and 12 study sites in year two. All study sites were located in the Ozark Mountains ecoregion in Northwest Arkansas. Sites were all Oak Hickory dominated hardwood forests at similar elevation (213.6 – 541 m). Devils Eyebrow and ONSC are public natural areas managed by the Arkansas Natural heritage Commission (ANHC). Devil’s Den and Hobbs are managed by the Arkansas state park system. Markham Woods (Markham), Ninestone Land Trust (Ninestone) and Forbes, are all privately owned, though Markham has a publicly accessible trail system throughout the property. Lake Sequoyah, Mt. Sequoyah Woods, Kessler Mountain, Lake Fayetteville, and Millsaps Mountain are all city parks and managed by the city of Fayetteville. Lastly, both Weddington and White Rock are natural areas within Ozark National Forest and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. We sampled 5 sites in both years of the study including Devils Eyebrow, Markham Hill, Sequoyah Woods, Ozark Natural Science Center (ONSC), and Kessler Mountain. We chose our study sites to represent a gradient of human development, based primarily on Anthropogenic noise values (Buxton et al. 2017, Mennitt and Fristrup 2016). We chose open spaces that were large enough to accommodate camera trap research, as well as representing an array of anthropogenic noise values. Since anthropogenic noise is able to permeate into natural areas within the urban interface, introducing human disturbance that may not be detected by other layers such as impervious surface and housing unit density (Buxton et al. 2017), we used dB values for each site as an indicator of the level of urbanization. Camera Placement We sampled ten study sites in the first winter of the study. At each of the 10 study sites, we deployed anywhere between 5 and 15 cameras. Larger study areas received more cameras than smaller sites because all cameras were deployed a minimum of 150m between one another. We avoided placing cameras on roads, trails, and water sources to artificially bias wildlife detections. We also avoided placing cameras within 15m of trails to avoid detecting humans. At each of the 12 study areas we surveyed in the second winter season, we deployed 12 to 30 cameras. At each study site, we used ArcGIS Pro (Esri Inc, Redlands, CA) to delineate the trail systems and then created a 150m buffer on each side of the trail. We then created random points within these buffered areas to decide where to deploy cameras. Each random point had to occur within the buffered areas and be a minimum of 150m from the next nearest camera point, thus the number of cameras at each site varied based upon site size. We placed all cameras within 50m of the random points to ensure that cameras were deployed on safe topography and with a clear field of view, though cameras were not set in locations that would have increased animal detections (game trails, water sources, burrows etc.). Cameras were rotated between sites after 5 or 10 week intervals to allow us to maximize camera locations with a limited number of trail cameras available to us. Sites with more than 25 cameras were active for 5 consecutive weeks while sites with fewer than 25 cameras were active for 10 consecutive weeks. We placed all cameras on trees or tripods 50cm above ground and at least 15m from trails and roads. We set cameras to take a burst of three photos when triggered. We used Timelapse 2.0 software (Greenberg et al. 2019) to extract metadata (date and time) associated with all animal detections. We manually identified all species occurring in photographs and counted the number of individuals present. Because density estimation requires the calculation of detection rates (number of Armadillo detections divided by the total sampling period), we wanted to reduce double counting individuals. Therefore, we grouped photographs of Armadillos into “episodes” of 5 minutes in length to reduce double counting individuals that repeatedly triggered cameras (DeGregorio et al. 2021, Meek et al. 2014). A 5 min threshold is relatively conservative with evidence that even 1-minute episodes adequately reduces double counting (Meek et al. 2014). Landcover Covariates To evaluate occupancy and density of Armadillos based on environmental and anthropogenic variables, we used ArcGIS Pro to extract variables from 500m buffers placed around each camera (Table 2). This spatial scale has been shown to hold biological meaning for Armadillos and similarly sized species (DeGregorio et al. 2021, Fidino et al. 2016, Gallo et al. 2017, Magle et al. 2016). At each camera, we extracted elevation, slope, and aspect from the base ArcGIS Pro map. We extracted maximum housing unit density (HUD) using the SILVIS housing layer (Radeloff et al. 2018, Table 2). We extracted anthropogenic noise from the layer created by Mennitt and Fristrup (2016, Buxton et al. 2017, Table 2) and used the “L50” anthropogenic sound level estimate, which was calculated by taking the difference between predicted environmental noise and the calculated noise level. Therefore, we assume that higher levels of L50 sound corresponded to higher human presence and activity (i.e. voices, vehicles, and other sources of anthropogenic noise; Mennitt and Fristrup 2016). We derived the area of developed open landcover, forest area, and distance to forest edge from the 2019 National Land Cover Database (NLDC, Dewitz 2021, Table 2). Developed open landcover refers to open spaces with less than 20% impervious surface such as residential lawns, cemeteries, golf courses, and parks and has been shown to be important for medium-sized mammals (Gallo et al. 2017, Poessel et al. 2012). Forest area was calculated by combing all forest types within the NLCD layer (deciduous forest, mixed forest, coniferous forest), and summarizing the total area (km2) within the 500m buffer. Distance to forest edge was derived by creating a 30m buffer on each side of all forest boundaries and calculating the distance from each camera to the nearest forest edge. We calculated distance to water by combining the waterbody and flowline features in the National Hydrogeography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey) for the state of Arkansas to capture both permanent and ephemeral water sources that may be important to wildlife. We measured the distance to water and distance to forest edge using the geoprocessing tool “near” in ArcGIS Pro which calculates the Euclidean distance between a point and the nearest feature. We extracted Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from the Arkansas Department of Transportation database (Arkansas GIS Office). The maximum value for ADT was calculated using the Summarize Within tool in ArcGIS Pro. We tested for correlation between all covariates using a Spearman correlation matrix and removed any variable with correlation greater than 0.6. Pairwise comparisons between distance to roads and HUD and between distance to forest edge and forest area were both correlated above 0.6; therefore, we dropped distance to roads and distance to forest edge from analyses as we predicted that HUD and forest area would have larger biological impacts on our focal species (Kretser et al. 2008). Occupancy Analysis In order to better understand habitat associations while accounting for imperfect detection of Armadillos, we used occupancy modeling (Mackenzie et al. 2002). We used a single-species, single-season occupancy model (Mackenzie et al. 2002) even though we had two years of survey data at 5 of the study sites. We chose to do this rather than using a multi-season dynamic occupancy model because most sites were not sampled during both years of the study. Even for sites that were sampled in both years, cameras were not placed in the same locations each year. We therefore combined all sampling into one single-season model and created unique site by year combinations as our sampling locations and we used year as a covariate for analysis to explore changes in occupancy associated with the year of study. For each sampling location, we created a detection history with 7 day sampling periods, allowing presence/absence data to be recorded at each site for each week of the study. This allowed for 16 survey periods between 01 December 2020, and 11 March 2021 and 22 survey periods between 01 November 2021 and 24 March 2022. We treated each camera as a unique survey site, resulting in a total of 352 sites. Because not all cameras were deployed at the same time and for the same length of time, we used a staggered entry approach. We used a multi-stage fitting approach in which we

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. Nasella Tussock Range were summarized within Campgrounds_Within_Range_DP

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. ESRI Experience Builder Regions were summarized within ESRI Experience Builder Regions - copy

This dataset comes from the biennial City of Tempe Employee Survey question about feeling safe in the physical work environment (building). The Employee Survey question relating to this performance measure: “Please rate your level of agreement: My physical work environment (building) is safe, clean & maintained in good operating order.” Survey respondents are asked to rate their agreement level on a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means “Strongly Agree” and 1 means “Strongly Disagree” (without “don’t know” responses included).The survey was voluntary, and employees were allowed to complete the survey during work hours or at home. The survey allowed employees to respond anonymously and has a 95% confidence level. This page provides data about the Feeling Safe in City Facilities performance measure. The performance measure dashboard is available at 1.11 Feeling Safe in City FacilitiesAdditional InformationSource: Employee SurveyContact: Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail: Wydale_Holmes@tempe.govData Source Type: CSVPreparation Method: Data received from vendor and entered in CSVPublish Frequency: BiennialPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary (update pending)

This dataset comes from the Annual Community Survey questions about the Feeling Safe in City Facilities survey results. The Community Survey question relating to this performance measure: “Please rate how satisfied you are with the feeling of safety you have in the following places during the day / at night: a) City athletic & recreational facilities; b) Tempe Public Library Complex” and “Please rate your level of satisfaction with: Overall feeling of safety in City.” Survey respondents are asked to rate their satisfaction level on a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied" (without "don't know" responses included). The survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe and has a 95% confidence level. This page provides data about the Feeling Safe in City Facilities performance measure. The performance measure dashboard is available at 1.11 Feeling of Safety in City FacilitiesAdditional InformationSource: Community Attitude SurveyContact: Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail: Wydale_Holmes@tempe.govData Source Type: CSVPreparation Method: Data received from vendor and entered in CSVPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

This layer shows particulate matter in the air sized 2.5 micrometers of smaller (PM 2.5). The data is aggregated from NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) gridded data into country boundaries, administrative 1 boundaries, and 50 km hex bins. The unit of measurement is micrograms per cubic meter.The layer shows the annual average PM 2.5 from 1998 to 2016, highlighting if the overall mean for an area meets the World Health Organization guideline of 10 micrograms per cubic meter annually. Areas that don't meet the guideline and are above the threshold are shown in red, and areas that are lower than the guideline are in grey.The data is averaged for each year and over the the 19 years to provide an overall picture of air quality globally. Some of the things we can learn from this layer:What is the average annual PM 2.5 value over 19 years? (1998-2016)What is the annual average PM 2.5 value for each year from 1998 to 2016?What is the statistical trend for PM 2.5 over the 19 years? (downward or upward)Are there hot spots (or cold spots) of PM 2.5 over the 19 years?How many people are impacted by the air quality in an area?What is the death rate caused by the joint effects of air pollution?Choose a different attribute to symbolize in order to reveal any of the patterns above.A space time cube was performed on a multidimensional mosaic version of the data in order to derive an emerging hot spot analysis, trends, and a 19-year average. The country and administrative 1 layers provide a population-weighted PM 2.5 value to emphasize which areas have a higher human impact. Citations:van Donkelaar, A., R. V. Martin, M. Brauer, N. C. Hsu, R. A. Kahn, R. C. Levy, A. Lyapustin, A. M. Sayer, and D. M. Winker. 2018. Global Annual PM2.5 Grids from MODIS, MISR and SeaWiFS Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) with GWR, 1998-2016. Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H4ZK5DQS. Accessed 1 April 2020van Donkelaar, A., R. V. Martin, M. Brauer, N. C. Hsu, R. A. Kahn, R. C. Levy, A. Lyapustin, A. M. Sayer, and D. M. Winker. 2016. Global Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter Using a Combined Geophysical-Statistical Method with Information from Satellites. Environmental Science & Technology 50 (7): 3762-3772. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05833.Boundaries and population figures:Antarctica is excluded from all maps because it was not included in the original NASA grids.50km hex bins generated using the Generate Tessellation tool - projected to Behrmann Equal Area projection for analysesPopulation figures generated using Zonal Statistics from the World Population Estimate 2016 layer from ArcGIS Living Atlas.Administrative boundaries from World Administrative Divisions layer from ArcGIS Living Atlas - projected to Behrmann Equal Area projection for analyses and hosted in Web MercatorSources: Garmin, CIA World FactbookPopulation figures generated using Zonal Statistics from the World Population Estimate 2016 layer from ArcGIS Living Atlas.Country boundaries from Esri 2019 10.8 Data and Maps - projected to Behrmann Equal Area projection for analyses and hosted in Web Mercator. Sources: Garmin, Factbook, CIAPopulation figures attached to the country boundaries come from the World Population Estimate 2016 Sources Living Atlas layer Data processing notes:NASA's GeoTIFF files for 19 years (1998-2016) were first brought into ArcGIS Pro 2.5.0 and put into a multidimensional mosaic dataset.For each geography level, the following was performed: Zonal Statistics were run against the mosaic as a multidimensional layer.A Space Time Cube was created to compare the 19 years of PM 2.5 values and detect hot/cold spot patterns. To learn more about Space Time Cubes, visit this page.The Space Time Cube is processed for Emerging Hot Spots where we gain the trends and hot spot results.The layers are hosted in Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere projection, but were processed using an equal area projection: Behrmann. If using this layer for analysis, it is recommended to start by projecting the data back to Behrmann.The country and administrative layer were dissolved and joined with population figures in order to visualize human impact.The dissolve tool ensures that each geographic area is only symbolized once within the map.Country boundaries were generalized post-analysis for visualization purposes. The tolerance used was 700m. If performing analysis with this layer, find detailed country boundaries in ArcGIS Living Atlas. To create the population-weighted attributes on the country and Admin 1 layers, the hex value population values were used to create the weighting. Within each hex bin, the total population figure and average PM 2.5 were multiplied.The hex bins were converted into centroids and the PM2.5 and population figures were summarized within the country and Admin 1 boundaries.The summation of the PM 2.5 values were then divided by the total population of each geography. This population value was determined by summarizing the population values from the hex bins within each geography.Some artifacts in the hex bin layer as a result of the input NASA rasters. Because the gridded surface is created from multiple satellites, there are strips within some areas that are a result of satellite paths. Some areas also have more of a continuous pattern between hex bins as a result of the input rasters.Within the country layer, an air pollution attributable death rate is included. 2016 figures are offered by the World Health Organization (WHO). Values are offered as a mean, upper value, lower value, and also offered as age standardized. Values are for deaths caused by all possible air pollution related diseases, for both sexes, and all age groups. For more information visit this page, and here for methodology. According to WHO, the world average was 95 deaths per 100,000 people.To learn the techniques used in this analysis, visit the Learn ArcGIS lesson Investigate Pollution Patterns with Space-Time Analysis by Esri's Kevin Bulter and Lynne Buie.

This dataset comes from the Annual Community Survey question "Please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the following: a) Your ability to participate in City decision-making processes." Respondents are asked to rate their satisfaction level on a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied" (without "don't know" as an option). This question relates to the Participating in City Decisions performance measure:The survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe and has a 95% confidence level.This page provides data for the Participating in City Decisions performance measure. The performance measure dashboard is available at 2.15 Participating in City Decisions.Additional InformationSource: Community Attitude Survey ( Vendor: ETC Institute)Contact: Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail: Wydale_Holmes@tempe.govData Source Type: Excel and PDFPreparation Method: Extracted from Annual Community Survey resultsPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

This layer contains wildfire hazard potential (WHP) data for the conterminous United States aggregated from states to block groups and 50 km hex bins then enriched with demographic data. The data is from the USDA Forest Service Fire Modeling Institute providing an index of WHP at a 270 meter resolution. Wildfire hazard potential provides information on the relative potential for wildfire that would be difficult for fire crews to contain. "Areas with higher wildfire potential values represent fuels with a higher likelihood of experiencing high-intensity fire with torching, crowning, and other forms of extreme fire behavior." - Fire Modeling Institute. A score of 5 is very high risk and a score between 0-1 is likely non-burnable area such as water or asphalt. "On its own, WHP is not an explicit map of wildfire threat or risk, but when paired with spatial data depicting highly valued resources and assets such as communities, structures, or powerlines, it can approximate relative wildfire risk to those resources and assets. WHP is also not a forecast or wildfire outlook for any particular season, as it does not include any information on current or forecasted weather or fuel moisture conditions. It is instead intended for long-term strategic planning and fuels management."Each layer has been enriched with 2020 Esri demographic attributes to better approximate wildfire hazard risk relating to the human population. This layer is available in a ready to use web map. A hosted imagery layer of this data is available in ArcGIS Living Atlas for additional analysis.Data notes:Zonal Statistics as Table were run against a local copy of the WHP data using US standard geographies as the feature zone input for the analysis. Geographies included are: State, County, Congressional District, ZIP Code, Tract, and Block Group. Statistical tables were joined to geographies. To learn more about zonal statistics, view the documentation here. 50 km hex bins were created using Generate Tessellation and then joined to zonal statistics as described above (step 1).Data was enriched with 2020 Esri Demographics. Attributes include population, households & housing units, growth rate, and calculated variables such as population change over time. To create the population-weighted attributes on the state, congressional district, and county layers, the hex value population values were used to create the weighting. Within each hex bin, the total population figure and average WHP were multiplied.The hex bins were converted into centroids and summarized within the state, congressional district, and county boundaries.The summation of these values were then divided by the total population of each respective geography.

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. Hennepin County Hazzards1 were summarized within One_Mile_from_SLP

A Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefile and summary tables of irrigated agricultural land-use are provided for the 15 counties fully within the Northwest Florida Water Management District (Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Leon, Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington counties). These files were compiled through a cooperative project between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Agricultural Water Policy. Information provided in the shapefile includes the location of irrigated lands that were verified during field surveying that started in May 2021 and concluded in August 2021. Field data collected were crop type, irrigation system type, and primary water source used. A map image of the shapefile is also provided. Previously published estimates of irrigation acreage for years since 1982 are included in summary tables.

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. AFIReportsJoin07172020 were summarized within Belize_poly

This dataset comes from the Annual Community Survey questions related to resident satisfaction with Safety in Parks. Survey participants are asked: “Feeling of safety during the day (and at night) in the following places: a) Neighborhood parks; b) City parks such as Kiwanis & Tempe Beach; c) Desert parks such as Papago & Evelyn Hallman.” Survey respondents are asked to rate their satisfaction level on a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied" (without "don't know" as an option).The survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe and has a 95% confidence level.This page provides data for the Safety in Parks Performance Measure. The performance measure page is available at 1.23 Safety in ParksAdditional InformationSource: Community Attitude SurveyContact: Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail: wydale_holmes@tempe.govData Source Type: CSVPreparation Method: Data received from vendor and entered in CSVPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. MinneapolisCoffeeShops_Address were summarized within Minneapolis_Neighborhoods