This graph shows the population of the U.S. by race and ethnic group from 2000 to 2023. In 2023, there were around 21.39 million people of Asian origin living in the United States. A ranking of the most spoken languages across the world can be accessed here. U.S. populationCurrently, the white population makes up the vast majority of the United States’ population, accounting for some 252.07 million people in 2023. This ethnicity group contributes to the highest share of the population in every region, but is especially noticeable in the Midwestern region. The Black or African American resident population totaled 45.76 million people in the same year. The overall population in the United States is expected to increase annually from 2022, with the 320.92 million people in 2015 expected to rise to 341.69 million people by 2027. Thus, population densities have also increased, totaling 36.3 inhabitants per square kilometer as of 2021. Despite being one of the most populous countries in the world, following China and India, the United States is not even among the top 150 most densely populated countries due to its large land mass. Monaco is the most densely populated country in the world and has a population density of 24,621.5 inhabitants per square kilometer as of 2021. As population numbers in the U.S. continues to grow, the Hispanic population has also seen a similar trend from 35.7 million inhabitants in the country in 2000 to some 62.65 million inhabitants in 2021. This growing population group is a significant source of population growth in the country due to both high immigration and birth rates. The United States is one of the most racially diverse countries in the world.

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.

California was the state with the highest resident population in the United States in 2024, with 39.43 million people. Wyoming had the lowest population with about 590,000 residents. Living the American Dream Ever since the opening of the West in the United States, California has represented the American Dream for both Americans and immigrants to the U.S. The warm weather, appeal of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, as well as cities that stick in the imagination such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, help to encourage people to move to California. Californian demographics California is an extremely diverse state, as no one ethnicity is in the majority. Additionally, it has the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States. By 2040, the population of California is expected to increase by almost 10 million residents, which goes to show that its appeal, both in reality and the imagination, is going nowhere fast.

This map shows the diversity index of the population in the USA in 2010 by state, county, tract, and block group. "The diversity index summarizes racial and ethnic diversity. The index shows the likelihood that two people, 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). For example, a diversity index of 59 means there is a 59 percent probability that two people randomly chosen would belong to different race or ethnic groups." -Esri DemographicsIt calls to the 2010 Census service with attributes related to race and ethnicity. The symbology is replicated at all geography levels so that the legend represents the same values with the same set of colors.

The statistic shows public opinion on TV shows being more or less racially diverse compared to five years ago in the United States as of August 2017. During the survey, ** percent of respondents believed that TV shows are somewhat more racially diverse compared to five years ago.

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.

Diversity in Tech Statistics: In today's tech-driven world, discussions about diversity in the technology sector have gained significant traction. Recent statistics shed light on the disparities and opportunities within this industry. According to data from various sources, including reports from leading tech companies and diversity advocacy groups, the lack of diversity remains a prominent issue. For example, studies reveal that only 25% of computing jobs in the United States are held by women, while Black and Hispanic individuals make up just 9% of the tech workforce combined. Additionally, research indicates that LGBTQ+ individuals are underrepresented in tech, with only 2.3% of tech workers identifying as LGBTQ+. Despite these challenges, there are promising signs of progress. Companies are increasingly recognizing the importance of diversity and inclusion initiatives, with some allocating significant resources to address these issues. For instance, tech giants like Google and Microsoft have committed millions of USD to diversity programs aimed at recruiting and retaining underrepresented talent. As discussions surrounding diversity in tech continue to evolve, understanding the statistical landscape is crucial in fostering meaningful change and creating a more inclusive industry for all. Editor’s Choice In 2021, 7.9% of the US labor force was employed in technology. Women hold only 26.7% of tech employment, while men hold 73.3% of these positions. White Americans hold 62.5% of the positions in the US tech sector. Asian Americans account for 20% of jobs, Latinx Americans 8%, and Black Americans 7%. 83.3% of tech executives in the US are white. Black Americans comprised 14% of the population in 2019 but held only 7% of tech employment. For the same position, at the same business, and with the same experience, women in tech are typically paid 3% less than men. The high-tech sector employs more men (64% against 52%), Asian Americans (14% compared to 5.8%), and white people (68.5% versus 63.5%) compared to other industries. The tech industry is urged to prioritize inclusion when hiring, mentoring, and retaining employees to bridge the digital skills gap. Black professionals only account for 4% of all tech workers despite being 13% of the US workforce. Hispanic professionals hold just 8% of all STEM jobs despite being 17% of the national workforce. Only 22% of workers in tech are ethnic minorities. Gender diversity in tech is low, with just 26% of jobs in computer-related sectors occupied by women. Companies with diverse teams have higher profitability, with those in the top quartile for gender diversity being 25% more likely to have above-average profitability. Every month, the tech industry adds about 9,600 jobs to the U.S. economy. Between May 2009 and May 2015, over 800,000 net STEM jobs were added to the U.S. economy. STEM jobs are expected to grow by another 8.9% between 2015 and 2024. The percentage of black and Hispanic employees at major tech companies is very low, making up just one to three percent of the tech workforce. Tech hiring relies heavily on poaching and incentives, creating an unsustainable ecosystem ripe for disruption. Recruiters have a significant role in disrupting the hiring process to support diversity and inclusion. You May Also Like To Read Outsourcing Statistics Digital Transformation Statistics Internet of Things Statistics Computer Vision Statistics

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?

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the detailed breakdown of the count of individuals within distinct income brackets, categorizing them by gender (men and women) and employment type - full-time (FT) and part-time (PT), offering valuable insights into the diverse income landscapes within United States. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based income distribution within the United States population, aiding in data analysis and decision-making..

Key observations

• Employment patterns: Within United States, among individuals aged 15 years and older with income, there were 119.64 million men and 117.56 million women in the workforce. Among them, 66.07 million men were engaged in full-time, year-round employment, while 50.33 million women were in full-time, year-round roles.
• Annual income under $24,999: Of the male population working full-time, 7.45% fell within the income range of under $24,999, while 10.76% of the female population working full-time was represented in the same income bracket.
• Annual income above $100,000: 29.72% of men in full-time roles earned incomes exceeding $100,000, while 18.56% of women in full-time positions earned within this income bracket.
• Refer to the research insights for more key observations on more income brackets ( Annual income under $24,999, Annual income between $25,000 and $49,999, Annual income between $50,000 and $74,999, Annual income between $75,000 and $99,999 and Annual income above $100,000) and employment types (full-time year-round and part-time)

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income brackets:

• $1 to $2,499 or loss
• $2,500 to $4,999
• $5,000 to $7,499
• $7,500 to $9,999
• $10,000 to $12,499
• $12,500 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $17,499
• $17,500 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $22,499
• $22,500 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $54,999
• $55,000 to $64,999
• $65,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $100,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Bracket: This column showcases 20 income brackets ranging from $1 to $100,000+..
• Full-Time Males: The count of males employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Males: The count of males employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket
• Full-Time Females: The count of females employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Females: The count of females employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for United States median household income by race. You can refer the same here

Racial diversity is measured by a diversity index that is calculated using United States Census racial and ethnic population characteristics from the PL-94 data file. The diversity index is a quantitative measure of the distribution of the proportion of five major ethnic populations (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Two or more races). The index ranges from 0 (low diversity meaning only one group is present) to 1 (meaning an equal proportion of all five groups is present). The diversity score for the United States in 2010 is 0.60. The diversity score for the San Francisco Bay Region is 0.84. Within the region, Solano (0.89) and Alameda (0.90) Counties are the most diverse and the remaining North Bay (0.55 - 0.64) Counties are the least diverse.

Conventional wisdom holds that public campaign financing can diversify the socioeconomic makeup of candidate pools and therefore of US elected officials, which could make US public policy more responsive to lower SES citizens. I argue that in addition to the absence of a positive relationship between public financing and candidate socioeconomic diversity, public financing, depending on the program design, may in fact reduce candidate socioeconomic diversity. Using occupational data on state legislative candidates in public financing state Connecticut and two paired control states to execute a difference in difference analysis, I demonstrate that when public financing is available, fewer low SES candidates run for state legislative office, and those who do run are not more likely to win and are less likely to utilize public financing.

Emergency medical services (EMS) workforce demographics in the United States do not reflect the diversity of the population served. Despite some efforts by professional organizations to create a more representative workforce, little has changed in the last decade. This scoping review aims to summarize existing literature on the demographic composition, recruitment, retention, and workplace experience of underrepresented groups within EMS. Peer-reviewed studies were obtained from a search of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest Thesis and Dissertations, and non-peer-reviewed (“gray”) literature from 1960 to present. Abstracts and included full-text articles were screened by two independent reviewers trained on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they pertained to the demographics, training, hiring, retention, promotion, compensation, or workplace experience of underrepresented groups in United States EMS by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. Studies of non-EMS fire department activities were excluded. Disputes were resolved by two authors. A single reviewer screened the gray literature. Data extraction was performed using a standardized electronic form. Results were summarized qualitatively. We identified 87 relevant full-text articles from the peer-reviewed literature and 250 items of gray literature. Primary themes emerging from peer-reviewed literature included workplace experience (n = 48), demographics (n = 12), workforce entry and exit (n = 8), education and testing (n = 7), compensation and benefits (n = 5), and leadership, mentorship, and promotion (n = 4). Most articles focused on sex/gender comparisons (65/87, 75%), followed by race/ethnicity comparisons (42/87, 48%). Few articles examined sexual orientation (3/87, 3%). One study focused on telecommunicators and three included EMS physicians. Most studies (n = 60, 69%) were published in the last decade. In the gray literature, media articles (216/250, 86%) demonstrated significant industry discourse surrounding these primary themes. Existing EMS workforce research demonstrates continued underrepresentation of women and nonwhite personnel. Additionally, these studies raise concerns for pervasive negative workplace experiences including sexual harassment and factors that negatively affect recruitment and retention, including bias in candidate testing, a gender pay gap, and unequal promotion opportunities. Additional research is needed to elucidate recruitment and retention program efficacy, the demographic composition of EMS leadership, and the prevalence of racial harassment and discrimination in this workforce.

Although the value of diversity—in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status—to the U.S. military has been subject to debate, preferences for diversity at educational institutions for the military officers are rarely examined systematically. To address this, we investigate whether midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy favor prioritizing diversity in student admissions and faculty recruitment using conjoint analysis, a method suited for estimating attitudes on sensitive and politicized issues. The results show strong preferences in favor of applicants from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and moderate but still positive preferences for members of traditionally underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in both admissions and faculty recruitment. Midshipmen’s preferences with respect to gender are, however, less straightforward. In particular, we find a strong negative preference against gender non-binary applicants and candidates. Our findings suggest that midshipmen’s attitudes reflect both resolved and unresolved debates that resonate throughout the armed forces.

This dataset tracks annual diversity score from 2021 to 2023 for American Indian Academy Of Denver vs. Colorado and School District No. 1 In The County Of Denver And State Of C

This dataset contains the digitized treatments in Plazi based on the original journal article Smith-Pardo, Allan H., Carpenter, James M., Kimsey, Lynn (2020): The Diversity of Hornets in the Genus Vespa (Hymenoptera: Vespidae; Vespinae), Their Importance and Interceptions in the United States. Insect Systematics and Diversity 4 (3), No. 2: 1-27, DOI: 10.1093/isd/ixaa006

The statistic shows the share of U.S. population, by race and Hispanic origin, in 2016 and a projection for 2060. As of 2016, about 17.79 percent of the U.S. population was of Hispanic origin. Race and ethnicity in the U.S. For decades, America was a melting pot of the racial and ethnical diversity of its population. The number of people of different ethnic groups in the United States has been growing steadily over the last decade, as has the population in total. For example, 35.81 million Black or African Americans were counted in the U.S. in 2000, while 43.5 million Black or African Americans were counted in 2017.

The median annual family income in the United States in 2017 earned by Black families was about 50,870 U.S. dollars, while the average family income earned by the Asian population was about 92,784 U.S. dollars. This is more than 15,000 U.S. dollars higher than the U.S. average family income, which was 75,938 U.S. dollars.

The unemployment rate varies by ethnicity as well. In 2018, about 6.5 percent of the Black or African American population in the United States were unemployed. In contrast to that, only three percent of the population with Asian origin was unemployed.

During an April 2023 survey in the United States, little more than ********** (** percent) of responding adults reported thinking that brands with a large target audience were either somewhat or very responsible for promoting diversity and inclusion. Around ** percent said such brands were not too responsible or not responsible at all for doing that, while the remaining ** percent of respondents did not know the answer or had no opinion on the matter.

California is home to 12 percent of the nation's population yet accounts for more than 20 percent of the people living in the nation’s hardest-to-count areas, according to the United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau). California's unique diversity, large population distributed across both urban and rural areas, and sheer geographic size present significant barriers to achieving a complete and accurate count. The state’s population is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before, with about 18 percent of Californians speaking English “less than very well,” according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Because the 2020 Census online form was offered in only twelve non-English languages, which did not correspond with the top spoken language in California, and a paper questionnaire only in English and Spanish, many Californians may not have been able to access a census questionnaire or written guidance in a language they could understand. In order to earn the confidence of California’s most vulnerable populations, it was critical during the 2020 Census that media and trusted messengers communicate with them in their primary language and in accessible formats. An accurate count of the California population in each decennial census is essential to receive its equitable share of federal funds and political representation, through reapportionment and redistricting. It plays a vital role in many areas of public life, including important investments in health, education, housing, social services, highways, and schools. Without a complete count in the 2020 Census, the State faced a potential loss of congressional seats and billions of dollars in muchneeded federal funding. An undercount of California in 1990 cost an estimated $2 billion in federal funding. The potential loss of representation and critically needed funding could have long-term impacts; only with a complete count does California receive the share of funding the State deserves with appropriate representation at the federal, state, and local government levels. The high stakes and formidable challenges made this California Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (Campaign) the most important to date. The 2020 Census brought an unprecedented level of new challenges to all states, beyond the California-specific hurdles discussed above. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau sought to collect data from households through an online form. While the implementation of digital forms sought to reduce costs and increase participation, its immediate impact is still unknown as of this writing, and it may have substantially changed how many households responded to the census. In addition, conditions such as the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a contentious political climate, ongoing mistrust and distrust of government, and rising concerns about privacy may have discouraged people to open their doors, or use computers, to participate. Federal immigration policy, as well as the months-long controversy over adding a citizenship question to the census, may have deterred households with mixed documentation status, recent immigrants, and undocumented immigrants from participating. In 2017, to prepare for the unique challenges of the 2020 Census, California leaders and advocates reflected on lessons learned from previous statewide census efforts and launched the development of a high-impact strategy to efficiently raise public awareness about the 2020 Census. Subsequently, the State established the California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (Census Office) and invested a significant sum for the Campaign. The Campaign was designed to educate, motivate, and activate Californians to respond to the 2020 Census. It relied heavily on grassroots messaging and outreach to those least likely to fill out the census form. One element of the Campaign was the Language and Communication Access Plan (LACAP), which the Census Office developed to ensure that language and communication access was linguistically and culturally relevant and sensitive and provided equal and meaningful access for California’s vulnerable populations. The Census Office contracted with outreach partners, including community leaders and organizations, local government, and ethnic media, who all served as trusted messengers in their communities to deliver impactful words and offer safe places to share information and trusted messages. The State integrated consideration of hardest-to-count communities’ needs throughout the Campaign’s strategy at both the statewide and regional levels. The Campaign first educated, then motivated, and during the census response period, activated Californians to fill out their census form. The Census Office’s mission was to ensure that Californians get their fair share of resources and representation by encouraging the full participation of all Californians in the 2020 Census. This report focuses on the experience of the Census Office and partner organizations who worked to achieve the most complete count possible, presenting an evaluation of four outreach and communications strategies.

Institutions of higher education (IHE) throughout the United States have a long history of acting out various levels of commitment to diversity advancement, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Despite decades of DEI “efforts,” the academy is fraught with legacies of racism that uphold white supremacy and prevent marginalized populations from full participation. Furthermore, politicians have not only weaponized education but passed legislation to actively ban DEI programs and censor general education curricula (https://tinyurl.com/antiDEI). Ironically, systems of oppression are particularly apparent in the fields of Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology (EECB)–which recognize biological diversity as essential for ecological integrity and resilience. Yet, amongst EECB faculty, people who do not identify as cis-heterosexual, non-disabled, affluent white males are poorly represented. Furthermore, IHE lack metrics to quantify DEI as a priority. Here we show that only 30.3% of US-faculty positions advertised in EECB from Jan 2019-May 2020 required a diversity statement; diversity statement requirements did not correspond with state-level diversity metrics. Though many announcements “encourage women and minorities to apply,” empirical evidence demonstrates that hiring committees at most institutions did not prioritize an applicant’s DEI advancement potential. We suggest a model for change and call on administrators and faculty to implement SMART (i.e., Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) strategies for DEI advancement across IHE throughout the United States. We anticipate our quantification of diversity statement requirements relative to other application materials will motivate institutional change in both policy and practice when evaluating a candidate’s potential “fit”. IHE must embrace a leadership role to not only shift the academic culture to one that upholds DEI, but to educate and include people who represent the full diversity of our society. In the current context of political censure of education including book banning and backlash aimed at Critical Race Theory, which further reinforce systemic white supremacy, academic integrity and justice are more critical than ever. Methods Here we investigated the (lack of) process in faculty searches at IHE for evaluating candidates’ ability to advance DEI objectives. We quantified the prevalence of required diversity statements relative to research and/or teaching statements for all faculty positions posted to the Eco-Evo Jobs Board (http://ecoevojobs.net) from January 2019 - May 2020 as a proxy for institutional DEI prioritization (Supplement). We also mapped the job posts that required diversity statements geographically to gauge whether and where diversity is valued in higher education across the US. Data analysis We pulled all faculty jobs posted on Eco-Evo jobs board (http://ecoevojobs.net) from Jan 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. For each position, we recorded the Location (i.e., state), Subject Area, Closing Date, Rank, whether or not the position is Tenure Track, and individual application materials (i.e., Research statement, Teaching statement, combined Teaching and Research statement, Diversity statement, Mentorship statement). Of the 543 faculty positions posted during this time, we eliminated 299 posts because the web links were broken or application information was no longer available (i.e., “NA”), leaving 244 faculty job posts. For each of the retained posts, we coded the requirement of teaching, research, diversity, and/or mentorship statements as follows:

"Yes” = statement required “No” = statement not required “Other” = application materials did not explicitly require a Diversity Statement (i.e., option or suggested that applicants include a statement on diversity and inclusion as a component of their teaching and/or research statement or in their cover letter)

Data visualization We created a Sankey diagram using Sankey Flow Show (THORTEC Software GmbH: www.sankeyflowshow.com) to compare diversity and representation from the general population, through (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) STEM academia (a career hierarchy often referred to as the “leaky pipeline”). We procured population data from the US Census Bureau (US Department of Commerce: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219) and quantified the diversity/representation in Conservation Biology (https://datausa.io/profile/cip/ecology-evolution-systematics-population-biology#demographics) and Ecology (https://datausa.io/profile/cip/conservation-biology) using Data USA (developed by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and Datawheel). We used the 2015 Diversity Index (produced by PolicyLink and the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity: https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Diversity_index/Ranking:33271/United_States/false/Year(s):2015/) to quantify relative ethnic diversity per state, and graphed Figure 2B using the tidyverse, rgdal, broom, and rgeos packages in R (see Base code used to produce Figure 2 in R, below). The Diversity index measures the representation of White, Black, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Mixed/other race in a given population. A maximum possible diversity score (1.79) would indicate even representation of all ethnic/racial groups. We checked all figures using the Color Blindness Simulator (ColBlindor: https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/) to maintain inclusivity.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) - Science Analytics and Synthesis (SAS) - Gap Analysis Project (GAP) manages the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), an Arc10x geodatabase, that includes a full inventory of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity and to other natural, recreation, historic, and cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/protected-areas). The PAD-US is developed in partnership with many organizations, including coordination groups at the [U.S.] Federal level, lead organizations for each State, and a number of national and other non-governmental organizations whose work is closely related to the PAD-US. Learn more about the USGS PAD-US partners program here: www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-data-stewards. The United Nations Environmental Program - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) tracks global progress toward biodiversity protection targets enacted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) available at: www.protectedplanet.net. See the Aichi Target 11 dashboard (www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/global-partnership-on-aichi-target-11) for official protection statistics recognized globally and developed for the CBD, or here for more information and statistics on the United States of America's protected areas: www.protectedplanet.net/country/USA. It is important to note statistics published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center (www.marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/dataanalysis/mpainventory/) and the USGS-GAP (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-statistics-and-reports) differ from statistics published by the UNEP-WCMC as methods to remove overlapping designations differ slightly and U.S. Territories are reported separately by the UNEP-WCMC (e.g. The largest MPA, "Pacific Remote Islands Marine Monument" is attributed to the United States Minor Outlying Islands statistics). At the time of PAD-US 2.1 publication (USGS-GAP, 2020), NOAA reported 26% of U.S. marine waters (including the Great Lakes) as protected in an MPA that meets the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) definition of biodiversity protection (www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about). USGS-GAP plans to publish PAD-US 2.1 Statistics and Reports in the spring of 2021. The relationship between the USGS, the NOAA, and the UNEP-WCMC is as follows: - USGS manages and publishes the full inventory of U.S. marine and terrestrial protected areas data in the PAD-US representing many values, developed in collaboration with a partnership network in the U.S. and; - USGS is the primary source of U.S. marine and terrestrial protected areas data for the WDPA, developed from a subset of the PAD-US in collaboration with the NOAA, other agencies and non-governmental organizations in the U.S., and the UNEP-WCMC and; - UNEP-WCMC is the authoritative source of global protected area statistics from the WDPA and WD-OECM and; - NOAA is the authoritative source of MPA data in the PAD-US and MPA statistics in the U.S. and; - USGS is the authoritative source of PAD-US statistics (including areas primarily managed for biodiversity, multiple uses including natural resource extraction, and public access). The PAD-US 2.1 Combined Marine, Fee, Designation, Easement feature class (GAP Status Code 1 and 2 only) is the source of protected areas data in this WDPA update. Tribal areas and military lands represented in the PAD-US Proclamation feature class as GAP Status Code 4 (no known mandate for biodiversity protection) are not included as spatial data to represent internal protected areas are not available at this time. The USGS submitted more than 42,900 protected areas from PAD-US 2.1, including all 50 U.S. States and 6 U.S. Territories, to the UNEP-WCMC for inclusion in the May 2021 WDPA, available at www.protectedplanet.net. The NOAA is the sole source of MPAs in PAD-US and the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, www.conservationeasement.us/) is the source of conservation easements. The USGS aggregates authoritative federal lands data directly from managing agencies for PAD-US (www.communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/), while a network of State data-stewards provide state, local government lands, and some land trust preserves. National nongovernmental organizations contribute spatial data directly (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-data-stewards). The USGS translates the biodiversity focused subset of PAD-US into the WDPA schema (UNEP-WCMC, 2019) for efficient aggregation by the UNEP-WCMC. The USGS maintains WDPA Site Identifiers (WDPAID, WDPA_PID), a persistent identifier for each protected area, provided by UNEP-WCMC. Agency partners are encouraged to track WDPA Site Identifier values in source datasets to improve the efficiency and accuracy of PAD-US and WDPA updates. The IUCN protected areas in the U.S. are managed by thousands of agencies and organizations across the country and include over 42,900 designated sites such as National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, some State Parks, State Wildlife Management Areas, Local Nature Preserves, City Natural Areas, The Nature Conservancy and other Land Trust Preserves, and Conservation Easements. The boundaries of these protected places (some overlap) are represented as polygons in the PAD-US, along with informative descriptions such as Unit Name, Manager Name, and Designation Type. As the WDPA is a global dataset, their data standards (UNEP-WCMC 2019) require simplification to reduce the number of records included, focusing on the protected area site name and management authority as described in the Supplemental Information section in this metadata record. Given the numerous organizations involved, sites may be added or removed from the WDPA between PAD-US updates. These differences may reflect actual change in protected area status; however, they also reflect the dynamic nature of spatial data or Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Many agencies and non-governmental organizations are working to improve the accuracy of protected area boundaries, the consistency of attributes, and inventory completeness between PAD-US updates. In addition, USGS continually seeks partners to review and refine the assignment of conservation measures in the PAD-US.