DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultural Ecosystem Services – a Gateway to Raising Awareness for the Importance of Nature for Urban Life

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cultural Ecosystem Services – a Gateway to Raising Awareness for the Importance of Nature for Urban Life © Jakub Kronenberg Cultural Ecosystem Services – A gateway to raising awareness for the importance of nature for urban life Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) are the non-material benefits people obtain from nature. They include recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, physical and mental health benefits and spiritual experiences. They contribute to a sense of place, foster social cohesion and are essential for human health and well-being. Although everyone benefits from CES, their impact on urban life is mostly intangible, and as a result difficult to measure and quantify. However, in contrast to other ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and water or air purification, which require advanced scientific knowledge to be recorded, CES are directly experienced and intuitively understood by people from all walks of life who come into contact with nature. This factsheet illustrates how CES offer a gateway to raising awareness of the wide range of ecosystem services provided by nature, their importance for quality of life and human health in cities, and their role in encouraging urban environmental stewardship. factsheet 8 URban Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services www.urbesproject.org What are cultural ecosystem services? The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and The tionality and interconnectedness of different ecosystem Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initia- components and their significance for urban quality of life. tive classify ecosystem services into four main categories: Their deeply personal meaning can also provoke strong provisioning services, regulating services, supporting ser- reactions from communities in response to development vices and cultural services. decisions that in some way affect the delivery and expe- rience of CES. Nevertheless, the importance of CES is The difference between cultural ecosystem services (CES) often overlooked during urban planning and they seldom and other ecosystem services is that they are primar- feature prominently within political decision-making. In- ily driven by human experience (see table 1). The close corporating CES into urban planning and policy-making connection between citizens and CES offers a valuable could help to increase awareness of nature as a critical opportunity for increasing awareness of the multi-func- component of human health and well-being. Table 1: Some of the cultural ecosystem services provided by nature, adapted from The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity (TEEB) (www.teebweb.org) Recreation, relaxation, Nature provides urban citizens with areas to exercise and relax and therefore contributes health to mental and physical health and well-being. Nature, particularly protected areas and wildlife, plays an important role in supporting Tourism tourism. Ecosystems and biodiversity are therefore an important source of employment and income generation. Aesthetic appreciation and Nature has been a source of inspiration throughout human history and is intimately cultural inspiration connected to culture, influencing language, art and religion. Spirituality and sense of In many cultures, nature is closely connected to spirituality and traditional customs which place contribute to a sense of place, social cohesion and belonging. © Anna Utkina © Timon McPhearson A gateway to environmental stewardship and urban sustainability Research by URBES partners has indicated a link be- tree planting effort or similar initiatives. They also dem- tween CES and civil society’s engagement in environmen- onstrated a stronger appreciation of urban nature and its tal stewardship. Residents’ experiences of, and attach- contribution to an enhanced sense of well-being. This ex- ment to, natural areas, can motivate people to learn more ample serves to demonstrate how CES can help to chan- about their surroundings and take action to preserve or nel citizen participation in monitoring and management restore the environment. programmes to help ensure the continued provision of other vital ecosystem services, such as clean water and Similarly, a study from Michigan, USA, analysing resi- climate regulation. CES may also facilitate a more com- dents’ attitudes to the removal of 10,000 street trees in prehensive and inclusive dialogue about sustainability by Ann Arbor, found that citizens who were in close proximity emphasising the multiple ways in which nature can be to the tree loss were more enthusiastic about engaging relevant and appreciated by people, and by demonstrat- in environmental stewardship by joining in a community ing how these different values are often interdependent. URban Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services www.urbesproject.org New York City – Incorporating CES into urban planning and management Multi-functionality of urban ecosystems is a key planning The importance of CES is being increasingly recognised and management priority in New York City. New York by New York City planners who are aiming to improve the City has a higher percentage of public space than any management of ecosystems in the city by acknowledging other city in the United States. Almost 40% of the city’s the link between environmental and human well-being. 11,300 ha of parkland are natural areas – wetlands, salt PlaNYC, New York City’s 20-year economic and environ- marshes, forests and beaches – which are home to a mental sustainability plan, aims to increase citizens’ ac- wide range of rare and endangered plant species. While cess to open spaces, with the goal of making sure that these ecosystems are vital for the provision of drinking all citizens are able to reach a park within a 10 minute water, climate regulation and flood prevention, they also walk. PlaNYC is also supporting civic engagement by en- provide numerous cultural benefits by providing spaces couraging a vibrant urban gardening movement, which is for social interaction, recreation and community pro- contributing to social well-being, while at the same time jects. They also increase neighbourhood stability and supporting biodiversity. Urban gardening also increases safety, as green spaces have been shown to create resilience by fostering inhabitants’ sense of place and neighbourhoods where there are fewer violent and prop- attachment to city areas and mitigating the negative im- erty crimes and neighbours tend to support and protect pacts of climate change by, for example, reducing the ur- each another. ban heat island effect. Urban parks as providers of cultural ecosystem services An URBES study on citizens’ use and perception of urban and ‘enjoying a peaceful environment’ (see figure 1), all parks in four European cities – Berlin, Stockholm, Rot- of which are closely linked to the need for relaxation and terdam and Salzburg – revealed different understandings thus related to physical and mental well-being. This com- of the CES provided by parks. Parks were primarily seen parative study shows how context and human percep- as recreational assets, though the importance given to tion are likely to change the relative importance of differ- various types of recreation differed between cities. The ent CES and demonstrates that citizens generally value top three reasons for visiting parks according to survey nature highly in terms of its contribution to mental and participants were ‘going for a walk’, ‘getting fresh air’, physical health and well-being. Go for a walk Get fresh air Relax and enjoy peaceful environment Experience nature and its beauty Take a relaxing route Spend :me with friends Get distrac:on from everyday life Watch other people Spend :me with family and kids Spend :me alone Get inspira:on from nature Sunbathing Reading Watch animals and plants Picnic Eat or drink in a restaurant Escape the summer heat Do sports Meet new people Barbecue Go to large events Walk the dog Swimming Skiing or ice ska:ng Sleighing 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of visitors that visit their favorite park for this reason Tiergarten (Berlin) Ralambshovsparken (Stockholm) Kralingse Bos (RoSerdam) Mirabellgarten (Salzburg) Figure 1 Activities carried out in the most popular parks in four European cities URban Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services www.urbesproject.org Underestimated opportunities for CES in shrinking cities There is great potential for incorporating CES into urban through community gardening activities, and educational planning and management in shrinking cities. Land aban- opportunities generated by urban biodiversity. donment and urban shrinkage influence the economic value of land, usually by reducing it substantially. Cities A similar study on vacant lots in New York City found that can alter this negative dynamic by adopting a CES ap- more than half of the surveyed abandoned spaces were proach. Research on shrinking cities in eastern and west- covered by trees and other vegetation. It also found that ern Germany (Leipzig, Halle, Chemnitz, Rhine-Ruhr area) vacant spaces were more likely to be used for community and Central and Eastern Europe (Katowice, Bytom, Lodz, gardens in lower income, denser neighbourhoods, dem- Donezk) has identified a range of CES which can be pro- onstrating their role in providing recreation and food pro- vided by vacant or abandoned land, including recreation- duction opportunities to communities of high social need al and health benefits, aesthetic values, social cohesion and with limited access to open spaces. Promoting urban sustainability through CES In order to acknowledge the importance of CES for urban Furthermore, highlighting the range of CES that can be citizens,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EAZA Bushmeat Campaign
    B USHMEAT | R AINFOREST | T IGER | S HELLSHOCK | R HINO | M ADAGASCAR | A MPHIBIAN | C ARNIVORE | A PE EAZA Conservation Campaigns EAZA Bushmeat Over the last ten years Europe’s leading zoos and aquariums have worked together in addressing a variety of issues affecting a range of species and Campaign habitats. EAZA’s annual conservation campaigns have raised funds and promoted awareness amongst 2000-2001 millions of zoo visitors each year, as well as providing the impetus for key regulatory change. | INTRODUCTION | The first of EAZA's annual conservation campaigns addressed the issue of the unsustainable and illegal hunting and trade of threatened wildlife, in particular the great apes. Bushmeat is a term commonly used to describe the hunting and trade of wild meat. For the Bushmeat Campaign EAZA collaborated with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) as an official partner in order to enhance the chances of a successful campaign. The Bushmeat Campaign can be regarded as the ‘template campaign’ for the EAZA conservation campaigns that followed over the subsequent ten years. | CAMPAIGN AIMS | Through launching the Bushmeat Campaign EAZA hoped to make a meaningful contribution to the conservation of great apes in the wild, particularly in Africa, over the next 20 to 50 years. The bushmeat trade was (and still is) a serious threat to the survival of apes in the wild. Habitat loss and deforestation have historically been the major causal factors for declining populations of great apes, but experts now agree that the illegal commercial bushmeat trade has surpassed habitat loss as the primary threat to ape populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Wildlife Food Planting Manual for the Southeast • Contents
    Supplemental Wildlife Food Planting Manual for the Southeast • Contents Managing Plant Succession ................................ 4 Openings ............................................................. 6 Food Plot Size and Placement ............................ 6 Soil Quality and Fertilization .............................. 6 Preparing Food Plots .......................................... 7 Supplemental Forages ............................................................................................................................. 8 Planting Mixtures/Strip Plantings ......................................................................................................... 9 Legume Seed Inoculation ...................................................................................................................... 9 White-Tailed Deer ............................................................................................................................... 10 Eastern Wild Turkey ............................................................................................................................ 11 Northern Bobwhite .............................................................................................................................. 12 Mourning Dove ................................................................................................................................... 13 Waterfowl ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Global Warming on Wildlife and Human Health
    Effects of Global Warming on Wildlife and Human Health Jennifer Lopez Editor Werner Lang Aurora McClain csd Center for Sustainable Development I-Context Challenge 2 1.2 Effects of Global Warming on Health Effects of Global Warm- ing on Wildlife and Human Health Jennifer Lopez Based on a presentation by Dr. Camille Parmesan main picture of presentation Figure 1: Earth from Outer Space. Introduction of greenhouse emissions.”4 Finally in 2007, the Fourth IPCC Assessment report concluded Global warming is defined as “the increase that the “warming of the climate system is un- in the average measured temperature of the equivocal” and “is very likely [> 90% sure] due Earth’s near surface air and oceans”.1 For the to observed increases in anthropogenic green- past several decades scientists have docu- house gas concentrations.”5 Based on these mented multiple aspects of climate change, conclusions, many scientists and environmen- including rising surface air temperature, rising talists have focused their efforts on sustainable ocean temperature, changes in rain and snow- living and are pushing for energy alternatives fall patterns, declines in permanent snowpack which produce little or no carbon-dioxide to and sea ice, and a rise in sea level.2 Through reduce greenhouse gas emissions. their research, scientists have been able not only to document changes in climate and the Effects of temperature change physical environment, but have also docu- mented effects that this phenomenon is having Scientists have concluded that in the past 100 on the world’s ecosystems and species, many years, the Earth’s average air temperature has of which are negative.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature's Benefits ESA
    DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES WHITE PAPER NATURE’S BENEFITS: THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING BIODIVERSITY IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICE PROGRAMS ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION Defenders of Wildlife has been a leader in addressing ecosystem services and market-based programs, one of the first nonprofit organizations to explore policies guiding these programs. This white paper examines the process for addressing ecosystem services in decision-making, in hopes that these concepts encourage policy-makers to balance the interests of nature and society. Author: Sara Vickerman Designer: Kassandra Kelly Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO Donald Barry, Executive Vice President © 2013 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4604 202.682.9400 www.defenders.org Cover images, clockwise from top: Black-footed ferret, photo by Ryan Hagerty, USFWS; Burrowing owls, photo by Lee Karney, USFWS; Western painted turtle, photo by Gary M. Scholtz, USFWS; Canada geese, Nisqually NWR, photo by Bruce Taylor; Student at Wetzel Woods Conservation Easement during Alterna- tive Outdoor School, photo courtesy of the Friends of Tualatin River NWR and the Conservation Registry. Back cover: Rockefeller Forest, Humboldt Redwoods State Park, photo by Bruce Taylor. INTRODUCTION he concept of ecosystem services – or the benefits that nature provides – has gained tremendous attention over the past decade. It is a common-sense approach to manage- ment that recognizes and makes the most of nature’sT contributions to human communities. Solutions based on ecosystem services generally avoid up-front costs and expensive maintenance of highly engineered alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Put the Life Back in Wildlife Grade 8
    OSPI-Developed Performance Assessment A Component of the Washington State Assessment System The Arts: Visual Arts Put the Life Back in Wildlife Grade 8 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction September 2018 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Old Capitol Building P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200 For more information about the contents of this document, please contact: Anne Banks, The Arts Program Supervisor Phone: 360-725-4966 email: [email protected] Or contact the Resource Center at 888-595-3276, TTY 360-664-3631 OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Questions and complaints of alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at 360-725-6162 or P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200. Except where otherwise noted, this Washington Arts K–12 assessment by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. All logos and trademarks are property of their respective owners. This work references the Washington State Learning Standards in The Arts (http://www.k12.wa.us/Arts/Standards/default.aspx). All standards designations are from the National Core Arts Standards (http://nationalartsstandards.org/). Copyright © 2015 National Coalition for Core Arts Standards/All Rights Reserved—Rights Administered by SEADAE.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: a Review and Analysis
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service 2009 The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: A Review and Analysis Ray T. Sterner U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Sterner, Ray T., "The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: A Review and Analysis" (2009). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 978. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/978 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. In: ÿ and book of Nature Conservation ISBN 978-1 -60692-993-3 Editor: Jason B. Aronoff O 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Chapter 8 Ray T. Sterner1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521-2154, USA Stabilizing human population size and reducing human-caused impacts on the environment are lceys to conserving threatened species (TS). Earth's human population is =: 7 billion and increasing by =: 76 million per year. This equates to a human birth-death ratio of 2.35 annually. The 2007 Red List prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) categorized 16,306 species of vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and other organisms (e.g., lichens, algae) as TS.
    [Show full text]
  • Responsible Human Use of Wildlife
    Standing Position Responsible Human Use of Wildlife Because humans are part of a functioning environment, we ultimately and legitimately derive our livelihood, and many of our cultural values, from the resource base. Human societies have recognized and accepted the use of wildlife resources for food, clothing, shelter, hunting, fishing, trapping, viewing, recreation, and as an indicator of environmental quality. All humans and human societies use wildlife directly and/or indirectly, because wildlife generates tangible goods and income and contributes to the economic and spiritual well-being of society. However, human use of natural resources, including wildlife, must be carried out in a responsible manner so that ecological processes can continue to function and sustain a diverse, healthy environment. This, in turn, will result in the continued well-being of both humans and wildlife. Human activities are a major factor in ecosystem disruption worldwide. Human population growth and technological development result in dramatic reductions and alterations in quality and availability of wildlife habitat, over-use of some wildlife species, greater human dependence on domesticated animals, and changes in the functioning of most ecosystems. Abuse of the land and water resources exacerbates the decline of natural resources and deterioration of the ecosystem’s abilities to support wildlife and human populations. Maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of wildlife populations and habitat characteristics through scientific management and regulations are vital to ecological functioning, genetic diversity, and perpetuation of wildlife populations, species, and habitats. Conservation-minded citizens and resource management professionals can successfully slow or reverse the decline of wildlife species and destruction of habitats. Prudent management practices and regulations, supported by a conservation-minded public, are essential for restoration of wildlife species, populations, and habitat productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Illegal and Unsustainable Hunting of Wildlife for Bushmeat in Sub-Saharan Africa
    About the Wilderness Problem-Specific Guide Series These guides summarize knowledge about how wildlife authorities can reduce the harm caused by specific wildlife crime problems. They are guides to preventing and improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents; neither do they cover technical details about how to implement specific responses. Who is this bushmeat guide for? This guide is aimed at wildlife officers and non-governmental conservation practitioners who have identified the illegal and unsustainable hunting of wildlife for bushmeat, as an important threat in a specific site or landscape. These include: ñ Protected Area Managers and their deputies ñ Conservation NGO Project Leads ñ Wildlife officers and NGO conservation practitioners of whatever rank or assignment, who have been tasked to address the problem These guides will be most useful to problem solvers who: Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods. The guides are designed to help conservation practitioners decide how best to analyze Scanning Analysis Collect and analyze and address a problem they have already Identify and prioritize information to determine problems. Choose one what drives and facilitates identified. The guides are structured in specific problem. the same way as the SARA process the problem. (right). This covers how to define your problem (Scan); questions you will need to answer to guide you to an effective intervention (Analysis); types of interventions you could use (Response); and ways to check if your intervention worked (Assessment). Response Assessment Implement response that reduces drivers and For a primer on Problem-Oriented Determine the impact of your facilitators of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat the U.S
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Weathering reduces the more toxic elements in oil products over time as Service is the federal exposure to air, sunlight, wave and tidal action, and certain microscopic agency responsible for organisms degrade and disperse many of the nation’s fish oil. Weathering rates depend on factors such as type of oil, weather, and wildlife resources and temperature, and the type of shoreline one of the primary trustees and bottom that occur in the spill area. for fish, wildlife and habitat Types of Oil Although there are different types of at oil spills. oil, the oil involved in the Deepwater Horizon spill is classified as light crude. The Service is actively involved Light crude is moderately volatile and in response efforts related to the can leave a residue of up to one third of Deepwater Horizon oil spill that the amount spilled after several days. It occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April leaves a film on intertidal resources and 20, 2010. Many species of wildlife, has the potential to cause long-term including some that are threatened or contamination. endangered, live along the Gulf Coast and could be impacted by the spill. Impacts to Wildlife and Habitat Oil causes harm to wildlife through Oil spills affect wildlife and their physical contact, ingestion, inhalation habitats in many ways. The severity and absorption. Floating oil can of the injury depends on the type and contaminate plankton, which includes quantity of oil spilled, the season and algae, fish eggs, and the larvae of MacKenzie FWS/Tom weather, the type of shoreline, and the various invertebrates.
    [Show full text]
  • Tech Rev 03-1 for PDF.Qxd
    The Relationship of Economic Growth to Wildlife Conservation Gross National Product Gross Time THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY Technical Review 03-1 2003 THE RELATIONSHIP OF ECONOMIC GROWTH TO WILDLIFE CONSERVATION The Wildlife Society Members of the Economic Growth Technical Review Committee David L. Trauger (Chair) Pamela R. Garrettson Natural Resources Program Division of Migratory Bird Management Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Virginia Center 11500 American Holly Drive 7054 Haycock Road Laurel, MD 20708 Falls Church, VA 22043 Brian J. Kernohan Brian Czech Boise Cascade Corporation National Wildlife Refuge System 2010 South Curtis Circle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Boise, ID 83705 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MS 670 Arlington, VA 22203 Craig A. Miller Human Dimensions Research Program Jon D. Erickson Illinois Natural History Survey School of Natural Resources 607 East Peabody Drive Aiken Center Champaign, IL 61820 University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405 Edited by Krista E. M. Galley The Wildlife Society Technical Review 03-1 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 March 2003 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Foreword Presidents of The Wildlife Society occasionally appoint ad hoc committees to study and report on select conservation issues. The reports ordinarily appear as either a Technical Review or a Position Statement. Review papers present technical information and the views of the appointed committee members, but not necessarily the views of their employers. Position statements are based on the review papers, and the preliminary versions are published in The Wildlifer for comment by Society members. Following the comment period, revision, and Council's approval, the statements are published as official positions of The Wildlife Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Review 12-04 December 2012
    The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation Technical Review 12-04 December 2012 1 The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The Wildlife Society and The Boone and Crockett Club Technical Review 12-04 - December 2012 Citation Organ, J.F., V. Geist, S.P. Mahoney, S. Williams, P.R. Krausman, G.R. Batcheller, T.A. Decker, R. Carmichael, P. Nanjappa, R. Regan, R.A. Medellin, R. Cantu, R.E. McCabe, S. Craven, G.M. Vecellio, and D.J. Decker. 2012. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Series Edited by Theodore A. Bookhout Copy Edit and Design Terra Rentz (AWB®), Managing Editor, The Wildlife Society Lisa Moore, Associate Editor, The Wildlife Society Maja Smith, Graphic Designer, MajaDesign, Inc. Cover Images Front cover, clockwise from upper left: 1) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) kittens removed from den for marking and data collection as part of a long-term research study. Credit: John F. Organ; 2) A mixed flock of ducks and geese fly from a wetland area. Credit: Steve Hillebrand/USFWS; 3) A researcher attaches a radio transmitter to a short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) in Colorado’s Pawnee National Grassland. Credit: Laura Martin; 4) Rifle hunter Ron Jolly admires a mature white-tailed buck harvested by his wife on the family’s farm in Alabama. Credit: Tes Randle Jolly; 5) Caribou running along a northern peninsula of Newfoundland are part of a herd compositional survey. Credit: John F. Organ; 6) Wildlife veterinarian Lisa Wolfe assesses a captive mule deer during studies of density dependence in Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • States of the Union: Ranking America's Biodiversity
    States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity April 2002 A NatureServe Report Prepared for NatureServe The Nature Conservancy 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor 4245 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22209 Arlington, VA 22203 703-908-1800 703-841-5300 www.natureserve.org http://nature.org NatureServe is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity A NatureServe Report Prepared for The Nature Conservancy Citation: Bruce A. Stein. 2002. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe. NatureServe 2002 ConContentstents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2 State of the States ............................................................................................................................ 3 Riches in Our Backyard NatureServe: Exploring Our Natural Heritage................................................................................ 4 Assessing Conservation Status Nature Across America: Ranking the States................................................................................... 6 Overall Biodiversity Patterns Rankings by Plant and Animal Group A More Perfect Union..................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix: State Ranking Tables.................................................................................................
    [Show full text]