Calculates zonal statistics on polygons from many categorical rasters for multiple attributes

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 map shows the change in particulate matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) air quality data for the US between 2010 and 2016 based on NASA SEDAC gridded data. The color indicates better or worse air quality, and the size of the symbol indicates population growth.This map 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 state, county, congressional district (116th) and 50 km hex bins. The unit of measurement is micrograms per cubic meter.The data is averaged for each year and over the the 19 years to provide an overall picture of air quality in the United States, including Puerto Rico. A space time cube was performed on a multidimensional mosaic version of the data in order to derive an emerging hot spot analysis. The county and state layers provide a population-weighted PM 2.5 value to emphasize which areas have a higher human impact. Each layer has been enriched with a set of 2019 US demographic attributes (excluding Puerto Rico) apportioned to the geography in order to map patterns alongside each other. 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:50km hex bins generated using the Generate Tessellation toolStates and counties come from 2018 TIGER boundaries with coastlines clipped116th Congressional Districts come from this ArcGIS Living Atlas layerData 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 Enrich tool was run to add 2019 Esri demographic and 2014-2018 ACS attributes to the geographies. Attributes such as population, poverty, minority population, and others were added to the layer.To create the population-weighted attributes on the state and county 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 summarized within the state and county boundaries.The summation of these values were then divided by the total population of each state/county.

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.

Pockmarks are defined as depressions on the seabed and are usually formed by fluid expulsions. Recently discovered, pockmarks along the Aquitaine slope within the French EEZ, were manually mapped although two semi-automated methods were tested without convincing results. In order to potentially highlight different groups and possibly discriminate the nature of the fluids involved in their formation and evolution, a morphological study was conducted, mainly based on multibeam data and in particular bathymetry from the marine expedition GAZCOGNE1, 2013. Bathymetry and seafloor backscatter data, covering more than 3200 km², were acquired with the Kongsberg EM302 ship-borne multibeam echosounder of the R/V Le Suroît at a speed of ~8 knots, operated at a frequency of 30 kHz and calibrated with ©Sippican shots. Precision of seafloor backscatter amplitude is +/- 1 dB. Multibeam data, processed using Caraibes (©IFREMER), were gridded at 15x15 m and down to 10x10 m cells, for bathymetry and seafloor backscatter, respectively. The present table includes 11 morphological attributes extracted from a Geographical Information System project (Mercator 44°N conserved latitude in WGS84 Datum) and additional parameters related to seafloor backscatter amplitudes. Pockmark occurrence with regards to the different morphological domains is derived from a morphological analysis manually performed and based on GAZCOGNE1 and BOBGEO2 bathymetric datasets. The pockmark area and its perimeter were calculated with the “Calculate Geometry” tool of Arcmap 10.2 (©ESRI) (https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/manage-data/tables/calculating-area-length-and-other-geometric-properties.htm). A first method to calculate pockmark internal depth developed by Gafeira et al. was tested (Gafeira J, Long D, Diaz-Doce D (2012) Semi-automated characterisation of seabed pockmarks in the central North Sea. Near Surface Geophysics 10 (4):303-315, doi:10.3997/1873-0604.2012018). This method is based on the “Fill” function from the Hydrology toolset in Spatial Analyst Toolbox Arcmap 10.2 (©ESRI), (https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/fill.htm) which fills the closed depressions. The difference between filled bathymetry and initial bathymetry produces a raster grid only highlighting filled depressions. Thus, only the maximum filling values which correspond to the internal depths at the apex of the pockmark were extracted. For the second method, the internal pockmark depth was calculated with the difference between minimum and maximum bathymetry within the pockmark. Latitude and longitude of the pockmark centroid, minor and major axis lengths and major axis direction of the pockmarks were calculated inside each depression with the “Zonal Geometry as Table” tool from Spatial Analyst Toolbox in ArcGIS 10.2 (©ESRI) (https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/zonal-statistics.htm). Pockmark elongation was calculated as the ratio between the major and minor axis length. Cell count is the number of cells used inside each pockmark to calculate statistics (https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/zonal-geometry.htm). Cell count and minimum, maximum and mean bathymetry, slope and seafloor backscatter values were calculated within each pockmark with “Zonal Statistics as Table” tool from Spatial Analyst Toolbox in ArcGIS 10.2 (©ESRI). Slope was calculated from bathymetry with “Slope” function from Spatial Analyst Toolbox in ArcGIS 10.2 (©ESRI) and preserves its 15 m grid size (https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/slope.htm). Seafloor backscatter amplitudes (minimum, maximum and mean values) of the surrounding sediments were calculated within a 100 m buffer around the pockmark rim.

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

This web map shows the wildfire hazard potential (WHP) for the conterminous United States aggregated from states to block groups and 50 km hex bins. 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. A score of 5 is very high risk and a score between 0-1 is 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. 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.

Retirement Notice: This item is in mature support as of February 2023 and will be retired in December 2025. A new version of this item is available for your use. Esri recommends updating your maps and apps to use the new version.This layer displays change in pixels of the Sentinel-2 10m Land Use/Land Cover product developed by Esri, Impact Observatory, and Microsoft. Available years to compare with 2021 are 2018, 2019 and 2020. By default, the layer shows all comparisons together, in effect showing what changed 2018-2021. But the layer may be changed to show one of three specific pairs of years, 2018-2021, 2019-2021, or 2020-2021.Showing just one pair of years in ArcGIS Online Map Viewer To show just one pair of years in ArcGIS Online Map viewer, create a filter. 1. Click the filter button. 2. Next, click add expression. 3. In the expression dialogue, specify a pair of years with the ProductName attribute. Use the following example in your expression dialogue to show only places that changed between 2020 and 2021:ProductNameis2020-2021 By default, places that do not change appear as a transparent symbol in ArcGIS Pro. But in ArcGIS Online Map Viewer, a transparent symbol may need to be set for these places after a filter is chosen. To do this: 4. Click the styles button.5. Under unique values click style options. 6. Click the symbol next to No Change at the bottom of the legend. 7. Click the slider next to "enable fill" to turn the symbol off. Showing just one pair of years in ArcGIS Pro To show just one pair of years in ArcGIS Pro, choose one of the layer's processing templates to single out a particular pair of years. The processing template applies a definition query that works in ArcGIS Pro. 1. To choose a processing template, right click the layer in the table of contents for ArcGIS Pro and choose properties. 2. In the dialogue that comes up, choose the tab that says processing templates. 3. On the right where it says processing template, choose the pair of years you would like to display. The processing template will stay applied for any analysis you may want to perform as well. How the change layer was created, combining LULC classes from two yearsImpact Observatory, Esri, and Microsoft used artificial intelligence to classify the world in 10 Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) classes for the years 2017-2021. Mosaics serve the following sets of change rasters in a single global layer: Change between 2018 and 2021Change between 2019 and 2021Change between 2020 and 2021To make this change layer, Esri used an arithmetic operation combining the cells from a source year and 2021 to make a change index value. ((from year * 16) + to year) In the example of the change between 2020 and 2021, the from year (2020) was multiplied by 16, then added to the to year (2021). Then the combined number is served as an index in an 8 bit unsigned mosaic with an attribute table which describes what changed or did not change in that timeframe. Variable mapped: Change in land cover between 2018, 2019, or 2020 and 2021 Data Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)Mosaic Projection: WGS84Extent: GlobalSource imagery: Sentinel-2Cell Size: 10m (0.00008983152098239751 degrees)Type: ThematicSource: Esri Inc.Publication date: January 2022 What can you do with this layer?Global LULC maps provide information on conservation planning, food security, and hydrologic modeling, among other things. This dataset can be used to visualize land cover anywhere on Earth. This layer can also be used in analyses that require land cover input. For example, the Zonal Statistics tools allow a user to understand the composition of a specified area by reporting the total estimates for each of the classes. Land Cover processingThis map was produced by a deep learning model trained using over 5 billion hand-labeled Sentinel-2 pixels, sampled from over 20,000 sites distributed across all major biomes of the world. The underlying deep learning model uses 6 bands of Sentinel-2 surface reflectance data: visible blue, green, red, near infrared, and two shortwave infrared bands. To create the final map, the model is run on multiple dates of imagery throughout the year, and the outputs are composited into a final representative map. Processing platformSentinel-2 L2A/B data was accessed via Microsoft’s Planetary Computer and scaled using Microsoft Azure Batch. Class definitions1. WaterAreas where water was predominantly present throughout the year; may not cover areas with sporadic or ephemeral water; contains little to no sparse vegetation, no rock outcrop nor built up features like docks; examples: rivers, ponds, lakes, oceans, flooded salt plains.2. TreesAny significant clustering of tall (~15-m or higher) dense vegetation, typically with a closed or dense canopy; examples: wooded vegetation, clusters of dense tall vegetation within savannas, plantations, swamp or mangroves (dense/tall vegetation with ephemeral water or canopy too thick to detect water underneath).4. Flooded vegetationAreas of any type of vegetation with obvious intermixing of water throughout a majority of the year; seasonally flooded area that is a mix of grass/shrub/trees/bare ground; examples: flooded mangroves, emergent vegetation, rice paddies and other heavily irrigated and inundated agriculture.5. CropsHuman planted/plotted cereals, grasses, and crops not at tree height; examples: corn, wheat, soy, fallow plots of structured land.7. Built AreaHuman made structures; major road and rail networks; large homogenous impervious surfaces including parking structures, office buildings and residential housing; examples: houses, dense villages / towns / cities, paved roads, asphalt.8. Bare groundAreas of rock or soil with very sparse to no vegetation for the entire year; large areas of sand and deserts with no to little vegetation; examples: exposed rock or soil, desert and sand dunes, dry salt flats/pans, dried lake beds, mines.9. Snow/IceLarge homogenous areas of permanent snow or ice, typically only in mountain areas or highest latitudes; examples: glaciers, permanent snowpack, snow fields. 10. CloudsNo land cover information due to persistent cloud cover.11. Rangeland Open areas covered in homogenous grasses with little to no taller vegetation; wild cereals and grasses with no obvious human plotting (i.e., not a plotted field); examples: natural meadows and fields with sparse to no tree cover, open savanna with few to no trees, parks/golf courses/lawns, pastures. Mix of small clusters of plants or single plants dispersed on a landscape that shows exposed soil or rock; scrub-filled clearings within dense forests that are clearly not taller than trees; examples: moderate to sparse cover of bushes, shrubs and tufts of grass, savannas with very sparse grasses, trees or other plants.CitationKarra, Kontgis, et al. “Global land use/land cover with Sentinel-2 and deep learning.” IGARSS 2021-2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. IEEE, 2021.AcknowledgementsTraining data for this project makes use of the National Geographic Society Dynamic World training dataset, produced for the Dynamic World Project by National Geographic Society in partnership with Google and the World Resources Institute.For questions please email environment@esri.com

This webmap is a subset of Global Landcover 1992 - 2020 Image Layer. You can access the source data from here. This layer is a time series of the annual ESA CCI (Climate Change Initiative) land cover maps of the world. ESA has produced land cover maps for the years 1992-2020. These are available at the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative website.Time Extent: 1992-2020Cell Size: 300 meterSource Type: ThematicPixel Type: 8 Bit UnsignedData Projection: GCS WGS84Mosaic Projection: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: GlobalSource: ESA Climate Change InitiativeUpdate Cycle: Annual until 2020, no updates thereafterWhat can you do with this layer?This layer may be added to ArcGIS Online maps and applications and shown in a time series to watch a "time lapse" view of land cover change since 1992 for any part of the world. The same behavior exists when the layer is added to ArcGIS Pro.In addition to displaying all layers in a series, this layer may be queried so that only one year is displayed in a map. This layer can be used in analysis. For example, the layer may be added to ArcGIS Pro with a query set to display just one year. Then, an area count of land cover types may be produced for a feature dataset using the zonal statistics tool. Statistics may be compared with the statistics from other years to show a trend.To sum up area by land cover using this service, or any other analysis, be sure to use an equal area projection, such as Albers or Equal Earth.Different Classifications Available to MapFive processing templates are included in this layer. The processing templates may be used to display a smaller set of land cover classes.Cartographic Renderer (Default Template)Displays all ESA CCI land cover classes.*Forested lands TemplateThe forested lands template shows only forested lands (classes 50-90).Urban Lands TemplateThe urban lands template shows only urban areas (class 190).Converted Lands TemplateThe converted lands template shows only urban lands and lands converted to agriculture (classes 10-40 and 190).Simplified RendererDisplays the map in ten simple classes which match the ten simplified classes used in 2050 Land Cover projections from Clark University.Any of these variables can be displayed or analyzed by selecting their processing template. In ArcGIS Online, select the Image Display Options on the layer. Then pull down the list of variables from the Renderer options. Click Apply and Close. In ArcGIS Pro, go into the Layer Properties. Select Processing Templates from the left hand menu. From the Processing Template pull down menu, select the variable to display.Using TimeBy default, the map will display as a time series animation, one year per frame. A time slider will appear when you add this layer to your map. To see the most current data, move the time slider until you see the most current year.In addition to displaying the past quarter century of land cover maps as an animation, this time series can also display just one year of data by use of a definition query. For a step by step example using ArcGIS Pro on how to display just one year of this layer, as well as to compare one year to another, see the blog called Calculating Impervious Surface Change.Hierarchical ClassificationLand cover types are defined using the land cover classification (LCCS) developed by the United Nations, FAO. It is designed to be as compatible as possible with other products, namely GLCC2000, GlobCover 2005 and 2009.This is a heirarchical classification system. For example, class 60 means "closed to open" canopy broadleaved deciduous tree cover. But in some places a more specific type of broadleaved deciduous tree cover may be available. In that case, a more specific code 61 or 62 may be used which specifies "open" (61) or "closed" (62) cover.Land Cover ProcessingTo provide consistency over time, these maps are produced from baseline land cover maps, and are revised for changes each year depending on the best available satellite data from each period in time. These revisions were made from AVHRR 1km time series from 1992 to 1999, SPOT-VGT time series between 1999 and 2013, and PROBA-V data for years 2013, 2014 and 2015. When MERIS FR or PROBA-V time series are available, changes detected at 1 km are re-mapped at 300 m. The last step consists in back- and up-dating the 10-year baseline LC map to produce the 24 annual LC maps from 1992 to 2015.Source dataThe datasets behind this layer were extracted from NetCDF files and TIFF files produced by ESA. Years 1992-2015 were acquired from ESA CCI LC version 2.0.7 in TIFF format, and years 2016-2018 were acquired from version 2.1.1 in NetCDF format. These are downloadable from ESA with an account, after agreeing to their terms of use. https://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download.phpCitationESA. Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2. Tech. Rep. (2017). Available at: maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdfMore technical documentation on the source datasets is available here:https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/satellite-land-cover?tab=doc*Index of all classes in this layer:10 Cropland, rainfed11 Herbaceous cover12 Tree or shrub cover20 Cropland, irrigated or post-flooding30 Mosaic cropland (>50%) / natural vegetation (tree, shrub, herbaceous cover) (<50%)40 Mosaic natural vegetation (tree, shrub, herbaceous cover) (>50%) / cropland (<50%)50 Tree cover, broadleaved, evergreen, closed to open (>15%)60 Tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed to open (>15%)61 Tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed (>40%)62 Tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, open (15-40%)70 Tree cover, needleleaved, evergreen, closed to open (>15%)71 Tree cover, needleleaved, evergreen, closed (>40%)72 Tree cover, needleleaved, evergreen, open (15-40%)80 Tree cover, needleleaved, deciduous, closed to open (>15%)81 Tree cover, needleleaved, deciduous, closed (>40%)82 Tree cover, needleleaved, deciduous, open (15-40%)90 Tree cover, mixed leaf type (broadleaved and needleleaved)100 Mosaic tree and shrub (>50%) / herbaceous cover (<50%)110 Mosaic herbaceous cover (>50%) / tree and shrub (<50%)120 Shrubland121 Shrubland evergreen122 Shrubland deciduous130 Grassland140 Lichens and mosses150 Sparse vegetation (tree, shrub, herbaceous cover) (<15%)151 Sparse tree (<15%)152 Sparse shrub (<15%)153 Sparse herbaceous cover (<15%)160 Tree cover, flooded, fresh or brakish water170 Tree cover, flooded, saline water180 Shrub or herbaceous cover, flooded, fresh/saline/brakish water190 Urban areas200 Bare areas201 Consolidated bare areas202 Unconsolidated bare areas210 Water bodies

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.

A 2D Hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) for below Tuttle Creek Reservoir at the confluence of the Kansas River and the Big Blue River near Manhattan, KS is presented. Model geometry is based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) 3DEP data (2015), with underwater bathymetry “burned” in using cross-sections sampled in the field in April of 2023. The model was calibrated based on water surface measured during data collection. The hydraulic simulations correspond to streamflows during which fish monitoring data were collected by researchers at Kansas State University (L. Rowley and K. Gido, to be published). Results from the hydraulic model, coupled with a sediment transport model, will be used to study fish and macroinvertabrate ecological response to streamflow. Methods The following is a summary of data utilized for developing a bathymetric terrain for 2D hydraulic modeling using HEC-RAS. Data used for model calibration and validation is also discussed.

Available Data Cross-section elevation data were collected by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District at approximately 200-foot to 1000-foot increments at the confluence of the Big Blue River and the Kansas River near Manhattan, Kansas. The following equipment was used by two complete surveying teams: • Ohmex SonarMite single beam echo sounder SFX @ 200khz, • Ohmex SonarMite single beam echo sounder DFX @ 28kHz & 200kHZ, • Trimble R12i 0096 & 0098, • Trimble R8 1984 & 6282

The cross-section elevation data were collected by boat and supplemented by hand-carried, pole-mounted Trimbles on April 10 to 14, 2023. The USGS gage on the Big Blue River near Manhattan, KS (06887000) had an average discharge of 425 cfs during the field collection time period (Figure 1). A USGS gage downstream of the confluence, Kansas River at Wamego, KS (06887500) shows an average discharge of 780 cfs at the same time period (Figure 2).

Figure 1 (Refer to supplemental information file). USGS gage Big Blue R NR Manhattan, KS – 06887000 discharge data for the week of April 11, 2023 – April 15, 2023. The average flow was taken as 425 cfs.

Figure 2 (Refer to supplemental information file). USGS gage Kansas River at Wamego, KS (06887500) discharge data for the week of April 11, 2023 – April 15, 2023. The average flow was taken as 780 cfs. Wamego, KS is downstream of the Big Blue River and Kansas River confluence and represents combined flow for both tributaries.

Figure 3 (Refer to supplemental information file). Map of bathymetric cross-sections collected in April 2023 near Manhattan, KS. Arrows show flow direction. Inset is the data collection location relative to the state of Kansas.

Terrain The field data collection featured 56 cross-sections. HEC-RAS 6.3.1 was utilized to create a bathymetric surface by interpolating 1-D cross-sections, while a 1-m resolution USGS 3DEP terrain (2015) was used for the floodplain and surrounding areas. A more recent USGS 3DEP (2018) data was available but featured higher stream flow than the 2015 data collection and therefore, more of the channel was submerged. Overall, the difference between 2015 and 2018 had a mean deviation of ~0.04 feet, with a majority of the differences in the channel ranging between +/-0.5 feet. Islands in this reach are unvegetated and prone to movement, and therefore the exact channel form is uncertain. However, it is assumed that relative island areas are consistent throughout the reach, and 2015 LiDAR was used to delineate the most island area as possible.

To build the bathymetric terrain, a similar process as what was discussed in Harris et al. (2023), field collected data were imported into ArcGIS Pro 3.0 as a point shapefile. To preserve georeferencing, the point shapefile was segmented into groups of 3-4 cross-sections and these cross-sections were interpolated into mini-surfaces using the Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) spatial analysis tool. These mini-surfaces were brought into HEC-RAS and cross-sections were drawn to intersect with these field surveyed locations. The 1-D cross-sections were then used to create a TIFF for the entire channel area. The 1D interpolation captures the channel centerline between measured cross-sections but meanders and channel widening may not be covered by the interpolated channel. The channel raster was broken into its component objects or “exploded”, in ArcGIS Pro using the Raster to Point tool. The points were then interpolated using the Inverse-Distance-Weighted interpolation tool (IDW). This creates a terrain that covers meanders and channel expansion while maintaining fidelity to the original channel raster.

Areas where the terrain was inundated at the time of LiDAR data collection are “flat” and referred to as a hydro-flattened surface. The Slope tool in ArcMap was used to delineate these hydro-flattened areas and a shapefile tracing unsubmerged islands was used. The IDW surface was clipped to the hydro-flattened extents and then mosaicked with the original 3DEP terrain to create a seamless bathymetric and topographic surface.

The field data collected in April 2023 (Figure 3) required supplemental information to cover a fish monitoring instance upstream of the bridge at Pillsbury Drive/177. In September 2021, the USACE Kansas City District collected sediment samples with XY-georeference and depth measurements. The LiDAR hydro-flattened surface was used to estimate the energy grade slope from the new cross-section to the recent field monitoring extents. The model scenario or “plan” on the April 2023 extents was run at a similar flow as was occurring in September 2021. The combination of water surface elevation at that flow (780 cfs), the energy grade slope in the 3DEP data and field measured depth in 2021 were used to estimate the elevation at the channel bed.

Land Cover Land cover was delineated using the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristic (MRLC) Consortium’s 2019 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) (MRLC 2016). Fifteen types of landcover were identified for this study area by the NLCD: Hay-Pasture, Shrub-Scrub, Developed Low Intensity, Developed Medium Intensity, Cultivated Crops, Deciduous Forest, Herbaceous, Develop Open Space, Developed High Intensity, Woody Wetlands, Emergent Herbaceous Wetland, Open Water, Mixed Forest, Barren Land, and Evergreen Forest. Manning’s n values were selected based on a range of n values along with a “Suggested Initial n” provided by Krest Engineers (2021) (Table 1). Table 1. A table representing a range of Manning’s n values, a suggested Manning’s n value, and percent imperviousness for each NLCD land cover type. (Krest Engineers, 2021)

Model Settings The 2D HEC-RAS mesh was set to 40-feet square, with breaklines to orient cell edges along areas of steep elevation change or to support model convergence. Boundary conditions were placed at three locations in the 2D flow area: the inflow of the Big Blue River (boundary condition type: flow hydrograph), the upstream end of the Kanas River (flow hydrograph), and the downstream end of the Kanas River (normal depth). An energy grade slope was given as 0.0005 ft/ft for the Big Blue River and 0.0003 ft/ft for the Kansas River. Advanced time step control adjustments were implemented using Courant’s Criterion, with a minimum Courant of 0.75 and a maximum of 3.

Calibration The suggested value from Krest Engineers (2021) was the initial Manning’s n used for each land cover type (Table 1). The hydraulic model was then run, and the Manning’s n was changed to better conform to water surface elevations observed during field data collection. Flows corresponding to the field collection dates were 415 cfs for the Big Blue River and 360 cfs for the Kansas River. These streamflows were determined by cross-referencing the field collection dates (April 10 to 14, 2023) to continuous monitoring data available from USGS at gages Big Blue R NR Manhattan, KS (06887000) and Kansas R at Fort Riley, KS (06879100). The 2D model simulation results were compared to the field-measured water surface elevations at each channel cross-section with the ArcGIS Zonal Statistics as Table tool. Model improvement was determined by calculating the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of the simulated water surface elevation to the field observed water surface elevation, and the Manning’s n values resulting in the lowest error were selected. Following calibration, the model has overall RMSE of 0.29 ft for depth. The final Manning’s n values used for all the following simulations are included in Table 2.

Land Cover

Mannings n

Open Water

0.025

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

0.05

Woody Wetlands

0.045

Herbaceous

0.025

Mixed Forest

0.08

Evergreen Forest

0.08

Deciduous Forest

0.1

Scrub-Shrub

0.07

Hay-Pasture

0.025

Cultivated Crops

0.02

Baren Land

0.023

Developed, Open Space

0.03

Developed, Low Intensity

0.06

Developed, Medium Intensity

0.08

Developed, High Intensity

0.12

Table 2. The selected Manning’s n per Landcover classification after calibration

Simulations Apart from the calibration simulations, further simulations were conducted to match additional fish data collection from July 17 – 21, 2023 and October 2- 6, 2023. USGS gages, Big Blue R NR Manhattan, KS (06887000) and Kansas R at Fort Riley, KS (06879100), were used to find the discharge rates (in cfs) during those fish sampling periods. While discharge was consistent throughout the weeks for some gages (Figures 4 and 7), others showed differences greater than 10% or 100 cfs (Figures 5 and 6). The gages that showed significant differences were divided into two sub-simulations for the lower and higher flows during that week.

USGS Streamflow Data for July 17 - 21, 2023

HEC RAS Scenario Description River Simulation Flow (cfs)

July_KS_LF July lower flow Big

WorldClim 2.1 provides downscaled estimates of climate variables as monthly means over the period of 1970-2000 based on interpolated station measurements. Here we provide analytical image services of precipitation for each month along with an annual mean. Each time step is accessible from a processing template.Time Extent: Monthly/Annual 1970-2000Units: mm/monthCell Size: 2.5 minutes (~5 km)Source Type: StretchedPixel Type: 16 Bit IntegerData Projection: GCS WGS84Mosaic Projection: GCS WGS84Extent: GlobalSource: WorldClim v2.1Using Processing Templates to Access TimeThere are 13 processing templates applied to this service, each providing access to the 12 monthly and 1 annual mean precipitation layers. To apply these in ArcGIS Online, select the Image Display options on the layer. Then pull down the list of variables from the Renderer options. Click Apply and Close. In ArcGIS Pro, go into the Layer Properties. Select Processing Templates from the left-hand menu. From the Processing Template pull down menu, select the version to display.What can you do with this layer?This layer may be added to maps to visualize and quickly interrogate each pixel value. The pop-up provides a graph of the time series along with the calculated annual mean value.This layer can be used in analysis. For example, the layer may be added to ArcGIS Pro and an area count of precipitation may be produced for a feature dataset using the zonal statistics tool. Statistics may be compared with the statistics from month to month to show seasonal patterns.To calculate precipitation by land area, or any other analysis, be sure to use an equal area projection, such as Albers or Equal Earth.Source Data: The datasets behind this layer were extracted from GeoTIF files produced by WorldClim at 2.5 minutes resolution. The mean of the 12 GeoTIFs was calculated (annual), and the 13 rasters were converted to Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF format and added to a mosaic dataset.Citation: Fick, S.E. and R.J. Hijmans, 2017. WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37 (12): 4302-4315.

Beta Notice: This item is currently in beta and is intended for early access, testing, and feedback. It is not recommended for production use, as functionality and content are subject to change without notice.This layer displays global land cover in 10 classes for the year 2018 produced by the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI). The 36 classes of the traditional ESA CCI land cover has been simplified to match the Esri 2050 land cover prediction layers. Phenomenon mapped: Land CoverData Projection: Cylindrical Equal AreaMosaic Projection: Cylindrical Equal AreaExtent: GlobalCell Size: 300mSource Type: ThematicVisible Scale: All scalesSource: ESA Climate Change InitiativePublication date: 2018 ESA CCI land cover data for the years 1992-2019 are available here. What can you do with this layer? This layer may be displayed in a map to show generalized land cover classes for the world in the year 2018.This layer can be used in analysis. For example, the layer may be added to ArcGIS Pro. Then, an area count of land cover types may be produced for a feature dataset using the zonal statistics tool. Statistics may be compared with the statistics from other years to show a trend. More technical documentation on the source datasets is available here:https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/satellite-land-cover?tab=doc

We used a stratified-random sampling approach to estimate the total abundance of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Ardenna pacifica) nest sites across Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (KPNWR), Kauaʻi, during 1-7 July 2019. We first identified strata as unique geographic areas of the refuge to account for potential differences in nesting habitat and non-uniform nest site clustering. We then sub-divided strata where we expected high, low, minimal, or no nest site abundance. These distinctions were based on knowledge of shearwater nesting distribution gained while performing extensive ground-searching for tropicbirds across the entire refuge in April and May 2019. We delineated strata boundaries using recent satellite imagery in ArcGIS (version 10.7) and, based on direct observations in the field, refined in order to remove large contiguous areas lacking shearwater presence or nesting habitat. Planar area of each polygon was automatically calculated by ArcGIS. To calculate surface area in each stratum, we obtained a 1/3 arc-second (10-m resolution) digital elevation model from the National Elevation Dataset (USGS 2013). This elevation raster was projected to Universal Transverse Mercator projection (Zone 4 North, North American Datum 1983) and converted to a surface area raster using the raster and sp packages in R (Hijmans 2019; Pebesma & Bivand 2005). We calculated stratum-specific surface area by summing the surface area values of raster cells in each stratum using XToolsPro (version 18; Zonal Statistics tool) in ArcMap (version 10.7). Hijmans RJ. 2019. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.0-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster Pebesma EJ, Bivand RS. 2005. Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5(2):9-13. U.S. Geological Survey. 2013. USGS NED n23w160 1/3 arc-second 2013 1 x 1 degree ArcGrid: U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed at https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/581d21dae4b08da350d53be2

Click to view Metadata CLOCAGWIaa183 grid represents sum of ugsaa with ussaa to obtain total groundwater infiltration (gwiaa). This 2007 draft data set was generated using the PRMS surface water model by Earthfx for CLOCA's Tier 1 water budget contract/source water protection program (2007-2008). Values are in mm/a transient (long-term annual averages) for a 19-year period of record of 1981-1999. Annual and monthly average grids are also available (summed daily means). Spatial resolution is a 25m grid covering CLOCA watersheds. The south-west corner of the data set is omitted due to the original grid definition. Zonal Statistics (mean) for CLOCA Watershed was calculated and CLOCAgwiaa183 was extracted. Raster calculator was then used to extract 1.15 or 15% above the mean for the jurisdiction.

The mapping is based of secondary data sources for bottom fishing pressure (OSPAR), sediment type and organic carbon (OC) content (Smeaton et al 2021), and sediment lability as a function of grain size (Smeaton et al 2022). A new calculation methodology has been created to estimate the potential vulnerability of OC to bottom fishing induced disturbance as a function of sediment grain size and resettling speed. This allows for the potential OC lost through lateral transportation, consumption, or remineralisation as a result of bottom fishing disturbance to be estimated. By using fuzzy set theory, the potential vulnerability of sedimentary OC is estimated and mapped for the UK EEZ. All calculations and modelling were carried out within the ESRI ArcGIS software package using the spatial overlay, raster calculator and the zonal statistics tools. Full details of the study and methodology can be found in Black et al. (2022) and relevant supporting documents.

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 layer displays a global map of land use/land cover (LULC) derived from ESA Sentinel-2 imagery at 10m resolution. Each year is generated with Impact Observatory’s deep learning AI land classification model, trained using billions of human-labeled image pixels from the National Geographic Society. The global maps are produced by applying this model to the Sentinel-2 Level-2A image collection on Microsoft’s Planetary Computer, processing over 400,000 Earth observations per year.The algorithm generates LULC predictions for nine classes, described in detail below. The year 2017 has a land cover class assigned for every pixel, but its class is based upon fewer images than the other years. The years 2018-2024 are based upon a more complete set of imagery. For this reason, the year 2017 may have less accurate land cover class assignments than the years 2018-2024. Key Properties Variable mapped: Land use/land cover in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024Source Data Coordinate System: Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) WGS84Service Coordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere WGS84 (EPSG:3857)Extent: GlobalSource imagery: Sentinel-2 L2ACell Size: 10-metersType: ThematicAttribution: Esri, Impact ObservatoryAnalysis: Optimized for analysisClass Definitions: ValueNameDescription1WaterAreas where water was predominantly present throughout the year; may not cover areas with sporadic or ephemeral water; contains little to no sparse vegetation, no rock outcrop nor built up features like docks; examples: rivers, ponds, lakes, oceans, flooded salt plains.2TreesAny significant clustering of tall (~15 feet or higher) dense vegetation, typically with a closed or dense canopy; examples: wooded vegetation, clusters of dense tall vegetation within savannas, plantations, swamp or mangroves (dense/tall vegetation with ephemeral water or canopy too thick to detect water underneath).4Flooded vegetationAreas of any type of vegetation with obvious intermixing of water throughout a majority of the year; seasonally flooded area that is a mix of grass/shrub/trees/bare ground; examples: flooded mangroves, emergent vegetation, rice paddies and other heavily irrigated and inundated agriculture.5CropsHuman planted/plotted cereals, grasses, and crops not at tree height; examples: corn, wheat, soy, fallow plots of structured land.7Built AreaHuman made structures; major road and rail networks; large homogenous impervious surfaces including parking structures, office buildings and residential housing; examples: houses, dense villages / towns / cities, paved roads, asphalt.8Bare groundAreas of rock or soil with very sparse to no vegetation for the entire year; large areas of sand and deserts with no to little vegetation; examples: exposed rock or soil, desert and sand dunes, dry salt flats/pans, dried lake beds, mines.9Snow/IceLarge homogenous areas of permanent snow or ice, typically only in mountain areas or highest latitudes; examples: glaciers, permanent snowpack, snow fields.10CloudsNo land cover information due to persistent cloud cover.11RangelandOpen areas covered in homogenous grasses with little to no taller vegetation; wild cereals and grasses with no obvious human plotting (i.e., not a plotted field); examples: natural meadows and fields with sparse to no tree cover, open savanna with few to no trees, parks/golf courses/lawns, pastures. Mix of small clusters of plants or single plants dispersed on a landscape that shows exposed soil or rock; scrub-filled clearings within dense forests that are clearly not taller than trees; examples: moderate to sparse cover of bushes, shrubs and tufts of grass, savannas with very sparse grasses, trees or other plants.NOTE: Land use focus does not provide the spatial detail of a land cover map. As such, for the built area classification, yards, parks, and groves will appear as built area rather than trees or rangeland classes.Usage Information and Best PracticesProcessing TemplatesThis layer includes a number of preconfigured processing templates (raster function templates) to provide on-the-fly data rendering and class isolation for visualization and analysis. Each processing template includes labels and descriptions to characterize the intended usage. This may include for visualization, for analysis, or for both visualization and analysis. VisualizationThe default rendering on this layer displays all classes.There are a number of on-the-fly renderings/processing templates designed specifically for data visualization.By default, the most recent year is displayed. To discover and isolate specific years for visualization in Map Viewer, try using the Image Collection Explorer. AnalysisIn order to leverage the optimization for analysis, the capability must be enabled by your ArcGIS organization administrator. More information on enabling this feature can be found in the ‘Regional data hosting’ section of this help doc.Optimized for analysis means this layer does not have size constraints for analysis and it is recommended for multisource analysis with other layers optimized for analysis. See this group for a complete list of imagery layers optimized for analysis.Prior to running analysis, users should always provide some form of data selection with either a layer filter (e.g. for a specific date range, cloud cover percent, mission, etc.) or by selecting specific images. To discover and isolate specific images for analysis in Map Viewer, try using the Image Collection Explorer.Zonal Statistics is a common tool used for understanding the composition of a specified area by reporting the total estimates for each of the classes. GeneralIf you are new to Sentinel-2 LULC, the Sentinel-2 Land Cover Explorer provides a good introductory user experience for working with this imagery layer. For more information, see this Quick Start Guide.Global land use/land cover maps provide information on conservation planning, food security, and hydrologic modeling, among other things. This dataset can be used to visualize land use/land cover anywhere on Earth. Classification ProcessThese maps include Version 003 of the global Sentinel-2 land use/land cover data product. It is produced by a deep learning model trained using over five billion hand-labeled Sentinel-2 pixels, sampled from over 20,000 sites distributed across all major biomes of the world.The underlying deep learning model uses 6-bands of Sentinel-2 L2A surface reflectance data: visible blue, green, red, near infrared, and two shortwave infrared bands. To create the final map, the model is run on multiple dates of imagery throughout the year, and the outputs are composited into a final representative map for each year.The input Sentinel-2 L2A data was accessed via Microsoft’s Planetary Computer and scaled using Microsoft Azure Batch. CitationKarra, Kontgis, et al. “Global land use/land cover with Sentinel-2 and deep learning.” IGARSS 2021-2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. IEEE, 2021.AcknowledgementsTraining data for this project makes use of the National Geographic Society Dynamic World training dataset, produced for the Dynamic World Project by National Geographic Society in partnership with Google and the World Resources Institute.

Sea floor morphology plays an important role in many scientific disciplines such as ecology, hydrology and sedimentology since geomorphic features can act as physical controls for e.g. species distribution, oceanographically flow-path estimations or sedimentation processes. In this study, we provide a terrain analysis of the Weddell Sea based on the 500 m × 500 m resolution bathymetry data provided by the mapping project IBCSO. Seventeen seabed classes are recognized at the sea floor based on a fine and broad scale Benthic Positioning Index calculation highlighting the diversity of the glacially carved shelf. Beside the morphology, slope, aspect, terrain rugosity and hillshade were calculated. Applying zonal statistics to the geomorphic features identified unambiguously the shelf edge of the Weddell Sea with a width of 45-70 km and a mean depth of about 1200 m ranging from 270 m to 4300 m. A complex morphology of troughs, flat ridges, pinnacles, steep slopes, seamounts, outcrops, and narrow ridges, structures with approx. 5-7 km width, build an approx. 40-70 km long swath along the shelf edge. The study shows where scarps and depressions control the connection between shelf and abyssal and where high and low declination within the scarps e.g. occur. For evaluation purpose, 428 grain size samples were added to the seabed class map. The mean values of mud, sand and gravel of those samples falling into a single seabed class was calculated, respectively, and assigned to a sediment texture class according to a common sediment classification scheme.