Map Critique: Imperiled Biodiversity in the U.S.

On March 3, 2022, the New York Times published a map on imperiled biodiversity in the U.S., seen above.  The title and introduction of the article do well to explain what the map is portraying, however the map itself lacks a suitable title.  “Concentrations of Imperiled Biodiversity” doesn’t convey what exactly imperiled biodiversity means; only if we read the article do we find that places in red are more likely to have animals and plants undergoing global extinction.  In my opinion, the title would work better as a subtitle behind “Global Extinction” or “Endangered Species in the U.S.”.  The map also lacks an appropriate legend, replacing a conventional one with a simple color scale to represent only one item of data.  No authors or organizations can be found on it either; the reader must scroll to the bottom of the article to find it was produced by NatureServe.  Lastly, the font color of the states isn’t very clear.  To read “Utah”, “Arizona”, or some other mountainous states, you either need to search or squint for focus.

            The method used to procure the data found on the map can only be found in the article and not the map itself.  “To identify concentrations of imperiled biodiversity, the scientists created models for more than 2,200 species based on where they are known to exist and their habitat needs” (Einhorn & Popovich, 2022).  Because of this brief explanation, we must assume the map shows areas of higher concentration based on the number of endangered animals living there.  And we must assume the data collectors were scientists at NatureServe, or scientists working with NatureServe, since it isn’t explicitly stated.  It would work better if the organization or the scientists were stated in a caption under the map itself, or in a box directly below it that shows statistics involving their quantitative data.  As for the data itself, it seems to have come from a legitimate source; NatureServe is a non-profit organization that provides conservation-related data to the government and the public.

            Another issue with the map is that it invites an ecological fallacy because the redder places appear to be where the most heavily forested areas are.  A conclusion the reader might make is that it’s only because these areas are heavily forested that more endangered populations of species appear.  An additional layer of data that includes forests and even vegetation might help to expose the relationship (or lack thereof).  Another idea would be to add an ocean layer, along with something that shows how the redder areas tend to be closer to the coasts, indicating higher threats closer to urban centers where there is more pollution of the environment.  The best layer to add would be areas populated heavily by humans, which may show a stronger relationship to the populations of endangered species than the mere existence of forestry.  Perhaps this data would strengthen the idea that areas near urban centers need more protection than areas away from them, forested or not.  A crucial region that is missing from the map is Alaska, which possesses vast areas of forested mountains and hardly any urban areas.  Contrasting Alaska with the southeastern U.S., which has forested mountains and many urban areas, would be an interesting way of examining the importance of urban proximity.

            The color scheme chosen by the cartographer is perfect for normal viewers: increasing shades of red to indicate the greatest potential threat.  Someone who is color-blind would not be able to read the map as well; however, if they’re perceiving the shades in black and white, it should be obvious where the danger zones are (the blacker they are, the more dangerous).  In that aspect, a single-color scheme is actually best to use for someone who is color blind.  Another issue is that the map has such high resolution that a printed version- say in a New York Times newspaper- might challenge the reader to differentiate one shade from the another.  It would be a more binary map; an area glanced at could be red or white with nothing in between.  One thing I would consider adding to the map are physical regions that are labeled, to help communicate where the biodiversity stressed areas are.  These labels could be bolder and larger in relation to the others, to bring more attention to them.

            Stated in the article is the message of the map: that areas where the population of endangered species is largest should be protected by more environmental policies.  Later in the article, there is another map that includes environmentally protected areas as an additional layer.  We can see from the second map that protected areas aren’t nearly numerous enough if we are going to protect our biodiversity, especially in California and the east.  The newspaper is famous for making strong points, and I believe it has done so again by using this map.

My first impression when viewing the map was how strongly imperiled biodiversity correlates with forested and mountainous areas.  The cartographer didn’t want to use those layers by themselves because then it would look like a normal reference map.  The added data of imperiled biodiversity communicates the fact that these are ecosystems under a lot of stress that demand our attention if we are going to conserve the natural environment.  Each of the areas in red have keystone species that impact the local environment in ways most people don’t realize.  Protecting them is not only crucial to the local environment, but to the long-term stability of the planet.  Maps like these help people pinpoint where the most help is needed to conserve our environment.

 

Source:

Einhorn, C., Popovich, N.  2022, March 3.  This Map Shows Where Biodiversity Is Most at Risk in America.  The New York Times.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/03/climate/biodiversity-map.html