This map is designed to work in the new ArcGIS Online Map Viewer. Open in Map Viewer to view map. What does this map show?This map shows the population in the US by race. The map shows this pattern nationwide for states, counties, and tracts. Open the map in the new ArcGIS Online Map Viewer Beta to see the dot density pattern. What is dot density?The density is visualized by randomly placing one dot per a given value for the desired attribute. Unlike choropleth visualizations, dot density can be mapped using total counts since the size of the polygon plays a significant role in the perceived density of the attribute.Where is the data from?The data in this map comes from the most current American Community Survey (ACS) from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table B03002. The layer being used if updated with the most current data each year when the Census releases new estimates. The layer can be found in ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World: ACS Race and Hispanic Origin Variables - Boundaries.What questions does this map answer?Where do people of different races live?Do people of a similar race live close to people of their own race?Which cities have a diverse range of different races? Less diverse?

The percent chance that two people picked at random within an area will be of a different race/ethnicity. This number does not reflect which race/ethnicity is predominant within an area. The higher the value, the more racially and ethnically diverse an area. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey Years Available: 2010, 2011-2015, 2012-2016, 2013-2017, 2014-2018, 2015-2019, 2017-2021, 2018-2022, 2019-2023Please note: We do not recommend comparing overlapping years of data due to the nature of this dataset. For more information, please visit: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/comparing-acs-data.html

These are the data used for the Racial and Ethnic Diversity for the Austin MSA story map. The story map was published July 2024 but displays data from 2000, 2010, and 2020.

Decennial census data were used for all three years. 2000: DEC Summary File 1, P004 2010: DEC Redistricting Data (PL 94-171), P2 2020: DEC Redistricting Data (PL 94-171), P2

Geographic crosswalks were used to harmonize 2000, 2010, and 2020 geographies.

Racial and Ethnic Diversity Index for the Austin MSA Storymap: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/88ee265f00934af7a750b57f7faebd2c

City of Austin Open Data Terms of Use – https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/ranj-cccq

This map service summarizes racial and ethnic diversity in the United States in 2012.

The Diversity Index shows the likelihood that two persons chosen at random from the same area, belong to different race or ethnic groups. The index ranges from 0 (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). Diversity in the U.S. population is increasing. The diversity score for the entire United States in 2012 is 61.

The data shown is from Esri's 2012 Updated Demographics. The map adds increasing level of detail as you zoom in, from state, to county, to ZIP Code, to tract, to block group data. This map shows Esri's 2012 estimates using Census 2010 geographies.

In the map, each dot represents 100 people in four race categories: white (non-Hispanic), black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic/Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander. Thus, the map also depicts population densities throughout the region. While the rural/ suburban areas in the region have largely white populations, many urban/densely populated areas in the region are racially diverse, with two or more ethnicities living in relatively non-segregated neighborhoods.

Aim

To understand the representativeness and accuracy of expert range maps, and explore alternate methods for accurately mapping species distributions.

Location

Global

Time period

Contemporary

Major taxa studied

Terrestrial vertebrates, and Odonata

Methods

We analyzed the biases in 50,768 animal IUCN, GARD and BirdLife species maps, assessed the links between these maps and existing political and various non-ecological boundaries to assess their accuracy for certain types of analysis. We cross-referenced each species map with data from GBIF to assess if maps captured the whole range of a species, and what percentage of occurrence points fall within the species’ assessed ranges. In addition, we use a number of alternate methods to map diversity patterns and compare these to high resolution models of distribution patterns.

Results

On average 20-30% of species’ non-coastal range boundaries overlapped with administrative national boundaries. In total, 60% of areas with the highest spatial turnover in species (high densities of species range boundaries marking high levels of shift in the community of species present) occurred at political boundaries, especially commonly in Southeast Asia. Different biases existed for different taxa, with gridded analysis in reptiles, river-basins in Odonata (except the Americas) and county-boundaries for Amphibians in the US. On average, up to half (25-46%) species recorded range points fall outside their mapped distributions. Filtered Minimum-convex polygons performed better than expert range maps in reproducing modeled diversity patterns.

Main conclusions

Expert range maps showed high bias at administrative borders in all taxa, but this was highest at the transition from tropical to subtropical regions. Methods used were inconsistent across space, time and taxa, and ranges mapped did not match species distribution data. Alternate approaches can better reconstruct patterns of distribution than expert maps, and data driven approaches are needed to provide reliable alternatives to better understand species distributions.

Methods Materials and methods

We use a combination of approaches to explore the relationship between species range maps and geopolitical boundaries and a subset of geographic features. In some cases we used the density of species range boundaries to explore the relationship between these and various features (i.e. administrative boundaries, river basin boundaries etc.). Additionally, species richness and spatial turnover are used to explore changes in richness over short geographic distances. Analyses were conducted in R statistical software unless noted otherwise. All code scripts are available at https://github.com/qiaohj/iucn_fix. Workflows are shown in Figure S1a-c with associated scripts listed.

Species ranges and boundary density maps

ERMs (Expert range maps) were downloaded from the IUCN RedList website for mammals (5,709 species), odonates (2,239 species) and amphibians (6,684 species; https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/grid/spatial-data). Shapefile maps for birds were downloaded from BirdLife (10,423 species, http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis), and for reptiles from the Global Assessment of Reptile Distributions (GARD) (10,064 species; Roll et al., 2017). Each species’ polygon boundaries were converted to a polylines to show the boundary of each species range (Figure S1a-II; codes are lines 7 – 18 in line2raster_xxxx.r ; xxxx varies based on the taxa). The associated shapefile was then split to produce independent polyline files for each species within each taxon (see Figure S1a-I, codes are lines 29 to 83 in the same file above.).

To generate species boundary density maps, species range boundaries were rasterized at 1km spatial resolution with an equal area projection (Eckert-IV), and stacked to form a single raster for each taxon (at the level of amphibians, odonates, etc.). This represented the number of species in each group and their overlapping range boundaries (Figure S1b-II, codes are in line2raster_all.r). Each cell value indicated the number of species whose distribution boundaries overlapped with each cell, enabling us to overlay this rasterized information with other features (i.e. administrative boundaries) so that the overlaps between them can be calculated in R. These species boundary density maps underlie most subsequent analyses. R code and caveats are given in the supplements, links are provided in text and Figure S1.

Geographic boundaries

Spatial exploration of species range boundaries in ArcGIS suggested that numerous geographic datasets (i.e. political and in few cases geographic features such as river basins) were used to delineate the species ranges for different regions and taxa (this is sometimes part of the methodology in developing ERMs as detailed by Ficetola et al., 2014). Thus in addition to analyzing the administrative bias and the percentage of occurrence records within each species’ ERM for all taxa, additional analyses were conducted when other biases were evident in any given taxa or region (detailed later in methods on a case-by-case basis).

For all taxa, we assessed the percentage of overlap between species range boundaries and national and provincial boundaries by digitizing each to 1km (equivalent to buffering thie polyline by 500m), both with and without coastal boundaries. An international map was used because international (Western) assessors use them, and does not necessarily denote agreed country boundaries (https://gadm.org/). The different buffers (500m, 1000m, 2500m, 5000m) were added to these administrative boundaries in ArcMap to account for potential, insignificant deviations from political boundaries (Figure S1b). An R script for the same function is provided in “country_line_buffer.r”.

To establish where multiple species shared range boundaries we reclassified the species range boundary density rasters for each taxa into richness classes using the ArcMap quartile function (Figure S1). From these ten classes the percentage of the top-two, and top-three quartiles of range densities within different buffers (500m, 1000m, 2500m, 5000m) was calculated per country to determine what percentage of highest range boundary density approximately followed administrative borders. This was done because people drawing ERMs may use detailed administrative maps or generalize near political borders, or may use political shapefiles that deviate slightly. It is consequently useful to include varying distances from administrative features to assess how range boundary densities vary in relation to administrative boundaries. Analyses of relationships between individual species range boundaries and administrative boundaries (coastal, non-coastal) were made in R and scripts provided (quantile_country_buffer_overlap.r).

Spatial turnover and administrative boundaries

Heatmaps of species richness were generated by summing entire sets of compiled species ranges for each taxon in polygonal form (Figure 1; Figure S1b-I). To assess abrupt diversity changes, standard deviations for 10km blocks were calculated using the block statistics function in ArcMap. Abrupt changes in diversity were signified by high standard deviations based on the cell statistics function in ArcGIS, which represented rapid changes in the number of species present. Maps were then classified into ten categories using the quartile function. Given the high variation in maximum diversity and taxonomic representation, only the top two –three richness categories were retained per taxon. This was then extracted using 1km buffers of national administrative boundaries to assess percentages of administrative boundaries overlapping turnover hotspots by assessing what proportion of political boundaries were covered by these turnover hotspots.

Taxon-specific analyses

Data exploration and mapping exposed taxon and regional-specific biases requiring additional analysis. Where other biases and irregularities were clear from visual inspection of the range boundary density maps for each taxa, the possible causes of biases were assessed by comparing range boundary density maps to high-resolution imagery and administrative maps via the ArcGIS server (AGOL). Standardized overlay of the taxon boundary sets with administrative or geophysical features from the image-server revealed three types of bias which were either spatially or taxonomically limited between: 1) amphibians with county borders in the United States, 2) dragonflies and river basins globally and 3) gridding of distributions of reptiles. In these cases, species boundary density maps were used as a basis to identify potential biases which were then explored empirically using appropriate methods.

For amphibians, counties in the United States (US) were digitized using a county map from the US (https://gadm.org/), then buffered by with 2.5km either side. Amphibian species range boundary density maps were reclassified showing where species range boundaries existed (with other non-range boundary areas reclassified as “no data,”) and all species boundaries numerically indicated (i.e. values of 1 indicates one species range boundary, values of 10 indicates ten species range boundaries). Percentages of species boundary areas falling on county and in the buffers, in addition to species range boundaries which did not overlap with county boundaries were calculated to give measures of what percentage of the species boundaries fell within 2.5km of county boundaries.

For Odonata, many species were mapped to river basin borders. We used river basins of levels 6-8 (sub-basin to basin) in the river hierarchy (https://hydrosheds.org) to assess the relationship between Odonata boundaries and river boundaries. Two IUCN datasets exist for Odonata; the IUCN Odonata specialist group spatial dataset

This dataset tracks annual diversity score from 2000 to 2023 for Malakoff Alternative Program (Map) vs. Texas and Malakoff Independent School District

This repository contains raster files (TIF format) with a 50 km × 50 km resolution (over UTM grid EPSG:32633), showcasing the diversity and distribution of Raunkiær’s life forms in European vegetation. The maps are based on two key metrics: (i) the proportion (%) of species within each life form and (ii) the diversity of life forms, including richness and evenness.

To generate these maps, we averaged plot-level metric values across a comprehensive dataset comprising 546,501 vegetation plots sourced from the European Vegetation Archive (EVA; Project 163; https://euroveg.org). These plots cover diverse habitats, including 173,190 forests, 260,884 grasslands, 52,517 scrubs, and 59,910 wetlands.

The maps encompass the entire dataset, offering a visualization of the geographical distribution patterns of life forms across Europe. Additionally, we created habitat-specific maps by subsetting the dataset to explore unique patterns within each habitat type (forest, grassland, scrub, and wetland).

Furthermore, we generated additional maps based on standardised effect sizes (SES) of diversity metrics. Through 500 species identity shuffles without replacement, specific to each habitat type, we examined the deviations from random expectations. SES values outside the range of -1.96 to 1.96 indicate significantly lower or higher metric values than expected at random, respectively.

Folder name Description of TIF raster values

full.div Mean richness and evenness of life forms across all habitat types

full.mean.rel.prop Mean proportion of each life form across all habitat types

habitat.div Mean richness and evenness of life forms across separate habitat types (forest, grassland, scrub, and wetland)

habitat.mean.rel.prop Mean proportion of each life form across separate habitat types (forest, grassland, scrub, and wetland)

SES.full.div Mean richness and evenness of life forms across all habitat types measured with standardized effect sizes (SES)

SES.full.mean.rel.prop Mean proportion of each life form across all habitat types measured with standardized effect sizes (SES)

SES.habitat.div Mean richness and evenness of life forms across separate habitat types (forest, grassland, scrub, and wetland) measured with standardized effect sizes (SES)

SES.habitat.mean.rel.prop Mean proportion of each life form across separate habitat types (forest, grassland, scrub, and wetland) measured with standardized effect sizes (SES)

Additional information is available in our publication:Midolo, G., Axmanová, I., Divíšek, J., Dřevojan, P., Lososová, Z., Večeřa, M., Karger, D. N., Thuiller, W., Bruelheide, H., Aćić, S., Attorre, F., Biurrun, I., Boch, S., Bonari, G., Čarni, A., Chiarucci, A., Ćušterevska, R., Dengler, J., Dziuba, T., Garbolino, E., Jandt, U., Lenoir, J., Marcenò, C., Rūsiņa, S., Šibík, J., Škvorc, Ž., Stančić, Z., Stanišić-Vujačić, M., Svenning, J. C., Swacha, G., Vassilev, K., & Chytrý, M. (2024) Diversity and distribution of Raunkiær’s life forms in European vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science. Accepted on the 10th of December 2023

It is important to identify any barriers in recruitment, hiring, and employee retention practices that might discourage any segment of our population from applying for positions or continuing employment at the City of Tempe. This information will provide better awareness for outreach efforts and other strategies to attract, hire, and retain a diverse workforce.This page provides data for the Employee Vertical Diversity performance measure. The performance measure dashboard is available at 2.20 Employee Vertical Diversity. Additional InformationSource:PeopleSoft HCM, Maricopa County Labor Market Census DataContact: Lawrence LaVictoireContact E-Mail: lawrence_lavicotoire@tempe.govData Source Type: Excel, PDFPreparation Method: PeopleSoft query and PDF are moved to a pre-formatted Excel spreadsheet.Publish Frequency: Every six monthsPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

GIS Web Map Application of the 10 City Council Voter Districts

Community level metrics for the Chicago site.

Users can obtain descriptions, maps, profiles, and ranks of U.S. metropolitan areas pertaining to quality of life, diversity, and opportunities for racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. BackgroundThe Diversity Data project operates a website for users to explore how U.S. metropolitan areas perform on evidence-based social measures affecting quality of life, diversity and opportunity for racial and ethnic groups in the United States. These indicators capture a broad definition of quality of life and health, including opportunities for good schools, housing, jobs, wages, health and social services, and safe neighborhoods. This is a useful resource for people inter ested in advocating for policy and social change regarding neighborhood integration, residential mobility, anti-discrimination in housing, urban renewal, school quality and economic opportunities. The Diversity Data project is an ongoing project of the Harvard School of Public Health (Department of Society, Human Development and Health). User FunctionalityUsers can obtain a description, profile and rank of U.S. metropolitan areas and compare ranks across metropolitan areas. Users can also generate maps which demonstrate the distribution of these measures across the United States. Demographic information is available by race/ethnicity. Data NotesData are derived from multiple sources including: the U.S. Census Bureau; National Center for Health Statistics' Vital Statistics Natality Birth Data; Natio nal Center for Education Statistics; Union CPS Utilities Data CD; National Low Income Housing Coalition; Freddie Mac Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index; Neighborhood Change Database; Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University; Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMD); Dr. Russ Lopez, Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health; HUD State of the Cities Data Systems; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; and Texas Transportation Institute. Years in which the data were collected are indicated with the measure. Information is available for metropolitan areas. The website does not indicate when the data are updated.

We present the crop diversity change maps in European Union (EU-27) at six observational scales from 1 to 50 km. We use novel high-resolution (10 m) satellite-derived data to map the multi-scale spatial changes of crop diversity in Europe between 2018 and 2022.

This dataset tracks annual diversity score from 2019 to 2023 for Map Academy Charter School School District vs. Massachusetts

This web map is provides the data and maps used in the story map Population density and diversity in New Zealand, created by Stats NZ. It uses Statistical Area 1 (SA1) data collected and published as part of the 2018 Census. The web map uses a mapping technique called multi-variate dot density mapping. The data used in the map can be found at this web service - 2018 Census Individual part 1 data by SA1.For questions or comments on the data or maps, please contact info@stats.govt.nz Census Data Quality Notes:We combined data from the census forms with administrative data to create the 2018 Census dataset, which meets Stats NZ’s quality criteria for population structure information.We added real data about real people to the dataset where we were confident the people should be counted but hadn’t completed a census form. We also used data from the 2013 Census and administrative sources and statistical imputation methods to fill in some missing characteristics of people and dwellings.Data quality for 2018 Census provides more information on the quality of the 2018 Census data.An independent panel of experts has assessed the quality of the 2018 Census dataset. The panel has endorsed Stats NZ’s overall methods and concluded that the use of government administrative records has improved the coverage of key variables such as age, sex, ethnicity, and place. The panel’s Initial Report of the 2018 Census External Data Quality Panel (September 2019), assessed the methodologies used by Stats NZ to produce the final dataset, as well as the quality of some of the key variables. Its second report 2018 Census External Data Quality Panel: Assessment of variables (December 2019) assessed an additional 31 variables. In its third report, Final report of the 2018 Census External Data Quality Panel (February 2020), the panel made 24 recommendations, several relating to preparations for the 2023 Census. Along with this report, the panel, supported by Stats NZ, produced a series of graphs summarising the sources of data for key 2018 Census individual variables, 2018 Census External Data Quality Panel: Data sources for key 2018 Census individual variables.The Quick guide to the 2018 Census outlines the key changes we introduced as we prepared for the 2018 Census, and the changes we made once collection was complete.The geographic boundaries are as at 1 January 2018. See Statistical standard for geographic areas 2018.2018 Census – DataInfo+ provides information about methods, and related metadata.Data quality ratings for 2018 Census variables provides information on data quality ratings.

Dataset (2016) containing 2 GIS maps from the Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas: 1) the Soil Biodiversity map showing a simple index describing the potential level of diversity living in soils (with the use of two other datasets: distribution of microbial soil carbon used as a proxy for soil microbial diversity, and the distribution of the main groups of soil macrofauna used as a proxy for soil fauna diversity. 2) the Soil Biodiversity threats showing the potential rather than the actual level of threat to soil organisms. For the development of this map, a number of diverse threats and corresponding proxies were chosen.

This web map shows positive plant habitat condition indicators across Great Britain (GB). This data provides a metric of plant diversity weighted by the species that you would expect and desire to have in a particular habitat type so indicates habitat condition. In each Countryside Survey 2007 area vegetation plot the number of positive plant habitat indicators (taken from a list created from Common Standards Monitoring Guidance and consultation with the Botanical society of the British Isles (BSBI)) for the habitat type in which the plot is located are counted. This count is then divided by the possible indicators for that habitat type (and multiplied by 100) to get a percentage value. This is extrapolated to 1km squares across GB using a generalised additive mixed model. Co-variables used in the model are Broad Habitat (the dominant broad habitat of the 1km square), air temperature, nitrogen deposition, sulphur deposition, precipitation and whether the plot is located in a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (presence or absence data).

Population data: Census units versus grid.

The recent increase in the availability of large vegetation-plot databases has created unprecedented opportunities for analysing and explaining patterns of fine-scale plant species richness across large areas and for individual habitat types. Here we demonstrate how these data can be used to (1) prepare country-wide high-resolution maps of species richness and identify national diversity hotspots for grassland and forest vegetation; (2) compare diversity patterns of all, native, alien and Red List species; and (3) identify potential environmental drivers of these patterns. At the same time we examine and quantify the stability of predicted species-richness patterns with respect to the most common biases that are inherent to large vegetation-plot databases. Vegetation-plot records were obtained from the Czech National Phytosociological Database and the Random Forest method was used to map fine-scale spatial diversity patterns of all, native, alien and Red List vascular plant species, separately for grasslands and forests across the Czech Republic. The stability of the predicted species-richness patterns was tested using differently resampled datasets in which we either reduced or increased local oversampling and preferential sampling of more species-rich communities. Models for grassland and forest vegetation explained 40–65% of variation in fine-scale species richness. Spatial patterns of all and native species richness differed considerably between grasslands and forests, whereas alien and Red List species showed a higher congruence between these two vegetation types. Patterns of modelled species richness were highly stable with respect to all resampling strategies applied to the initial datasets. We conclude that vegetation-plot databases are a valuable source of data for high-resolution mapping of the plant species richness of different vegetation types and species groups, because each of them can exhibit a different diversity pattern. The resulting maps provide robust representation of the spatial patterns of fine-scale species richness and can be used both for testing scientific hypotheses about the controls of diversity patterns and for conservation planning.

Contained within the 5th Edition (1978 to 1995) of the National Atlas of Canada is a map that shows the index of concentration for Census Divisions and index of entropy (ethnic heterogeneity) for all 25 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs). The graphs show the breakdown of ethnic population in each CMA, and for Canada.