What do the Black Rhino, Amur Leopard, and Sumatran Orangutan all have in common? Though they live on different continents, they’re all considered to be “Critically Endangered.” Along with 14 other species, these three animals have a conservation status that is closest to extinction according to the World Wildlife Fund. Explore the map below to see 90 endangered animals and where you can find them. Then, read on to see what each status means and the most common types of animals on the list.

View Endangered Animals Mapped in a full screen map

You can sort the map by the color-coded conservation statuses. Red refers to animals that are “Critically Endangered,” orange is for “Endangered” animals and yellow signifies animals that are “Vulnerable.” Species that are “Near Threatened” are shown in green whereas animals that can be classified as “Least Concern” appear blue on our map.

Conservation Status: What Does Endangered Really Mean?

According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) where we got the data for our map, there are five different conservation statuses that are cause for concern. The table below explains the types of conservation statuses ordered from least concerning to the status with the greatest cause for concern.

Conservation Status	Meaning
Least Concern	Doesn’t qualify for any of the other conservation statuses.
Near Threatened	Will probably qualify for a more concerning conservation status soon.
Vulnerable	Faces a high risk of extinction in the wild.
Endangered	Faces a high risk of extinction in the wild.
Critically Endangered	Faces an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.

Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable

All of the conservation statuses on the map are important. However, the term “endangered” specifically refers to animals that are either “Critically Endangered,” “Endangered,” or “Vulnerable.” There are 18 “Critically Endangered” animals out of the 90 that we mapped. Some of these animals include the Saola, Vaquita, and the Yangtze Finless Porpoise, along with 15 others. There are also 30 “Endangered” animals on the map, such as the African Wild Dog, the Black-footed Ferret, and the Poison Dart Frog. Finally, there are 20 animals that maintain a “Vulnerable” conservation status, like hippos, the Black Spider Monkey, the Marine Iguana, and 17 more.

Near Threatened, Least Concern, and Others

Our map also contains ten “Near Threatened” animals and 11 “Least Concern” animals. Some of the animals that are “Near Threatened” are Jaguars, Monarch Butterflies, and the Plains Bison. The “Least Concern” animals on our map include Arctic Wolves and Tree Kangaroos.

There are three additional statuses the WWF sometimes uses to categorize animals that are not on the map. Two of these statuses indicate very few remaining animals or that they have disappeared from the face of the Earth entirely. “Functionally Extinct” or “Extinct in the Wild” animals exist only in captivity; they can no longer be found in the wild. With “Extinct” animals, the name speaks for itself. Scientists and classify an animal as “Extinct” when they’re sure the last known animal of the species has died. The third additional conservation status is “Data Deficient.” These animals don’t have enough data for us to know how many still exist. Orca Whales are “Data Deficient,” perhaps because scientists aren’t too excited about the dangers of tagging a Killer Whale.

Animals with Multiple Sub-Species on the Decline

The following animals are facing the decline of multiple sub-species:

• Elephants
• Tigers
• Whales & Dolphins
• Rhinos
• Turtles & Tunas
• Gorillas & Orangutans
• Leopards
• Sloths
• Penguins
• Pandas & Bears
• Sharks
• Foxs

That’s 16 animal types with two or more sub-species needing a conservation classification! Here’s a breakdown of these animals and their sub-species. “Critically Endangered” animal subspecies — animals currently facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild — include the Amur Leopard and three different sub-species of rhinos. The Black Rhino, Javan Rhino, and the Sumatran Rhino are all “Critically Endangered.” Two types of orangutans are also “Critically Endangered:” the Bornean Orangutan and the Sumatran Orangutan. Further “Critically Endangered” animals include three types of gorillas: the Cross River Gorilla, the Eastern Lowland Gorilla, and the Western Lowland Gorilla. The Hawksbill Turtle is also “Critically Endangered,” as is the Pygmy Three-toed Sloth and the Sumatran Elephant. Two species of tigers are also “Critically Endangered:” the Malayan Tiger and the Sumatran Tiger.

“Endangered” animals facing high risks of extinction in the wild include four species of elephants: Asian, Borneo Pygmy, Indian, and Sri Lankan. There are four types of “Endangered” whales: Blue, Fin, North Atlantic Right, and Sei. Many sub-species of dolphins are also “Endangered,” including Ganges River, Hector’s, Indus River, and Irrawaddy Dolphins. Plus, Amur, Bengal, and Indochinese Tigers all face endangerment.

As for “Vulnerable” animal sub-species, we count three elephants, three turtles, and one dolphin. African, Forest, and Savanna Elephants all have “Vulnerable-status.” They face high risks of extinction in the wild, as do Leatherback, Loggerhead, and Olive Ridley Turtles and Amazon River Dolphins. Bigeye Tuna, Giant Pandas, Greater One-Horned Rhinos, Polar Bears, Maned Sloths, and Snow Leopards are also “Vulnerable.”

---

This Endangered Animals Map was made with BatchGeo, and you can make similar maps using your own data!

BatchGeo offers a map grouping feature, which is a great way to pinpoint trends within your data you may have missed otherwise. For example, once we grouped our map by Conservation status, we noticed that many Critically Endangered animals are located in Sumatra. The ability to sort any map by type or group will almost always provide new insights, as is the option to change the color of your grouping markers. Plus, you can customize your map’s markers to one of three shapes as we utilized in our map.

May is National Bike Month. To gear up for it, we noted the best — and worst — cities for cycling overall. Now, there are many factors in determining what makes a city a fantastic place for bike-lovers. From ridership and safety to network, reach, and acceleration, there are 12 cities that truly excel at cycling overall. Yet, there are even more cities that avid cyclists may want to avoid, along with a large area of the United States known to be less than bike-friendly. Care to make an educated guess about where your city falls? Check if you’re right about your city’s placement among 484 cities that are either the best or worst for cycling.
The map above has data we pulled from the bike experts at People for Bikes. Sort it by overall cycling score or delve deeper into exactly what makes an ideal cycling city with the various cycling variables.

Cities That Excel at Cycling

What do Wausau, Wisconsin, and Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado have in common? They each have an excellent overall bike score of 3.5 — the highest of all U.S. cities. While computing a city’s overall bike score may be enough to make your wheels spin, it’s actually pretty straightforward. The overall bike score is comprised of five categories: ridership, safety, network, reach, and acceleration. Let’s break down the top three overall cycling cities by these five subcategories.

Ridership is an estimation of how many people ride bikes and how often they do so. Boulder has the highest ridership score (a 3.1 out of 5) of the three best overall cycling cities. On the other hand, Wausau’s ridership score is just 1.7, while Fort Collins scores somewhere in the middle of the road. As for safety — which takes into account car accidents resulting in deaths or injuries of bikers, pedestrians, and other cars — Fort Collins scores the highest (a 3.7.) Wausau isn’t too far behind with a safety score of 3.3. However, Boulder’s safety score (2.2) indicates that a Colorado cycler’s safety depends on what city you’re in.

What Boulder lacks in safety, it makes up for in network, or how well bike paths lead cyclists where they want to go. Boulder gets a 4.1 in this category. As for the other two top overall cycling cities? Fort Collins and Wausau each score in the threes when it comes to network. Wausau also scores a 3.2 in reach or the consistency in which the city’s bike paths are accessible to everyone. Fort Collins and Boulder’s reach scores are 2.1 and 2.9, respectively. It’s important to note that Wausau is pedaling in the big leagues as the Colorado cities are much more populated. Wausau’s smaller population may be a factor in its ratings. With that said, the smaller Wisconsin city also scores the best (3.9) in acceleration — the rate at which a city enhances and promotes its biking infrastructure. Fort Collins and Boulder score a 3.3 and 2.7, respectively.

Not too far behind the three wheelie great cities for cycling are:

• Portland, Oregon
• Tucson, Arizona
• San Diego, California
• Madison, Wisconsin
• Santa Monica, California
• Washington, D.C.
• New Orleans, Louisiana
• New York, New York
• Carmel, Indiana

These cities have overall biking scores above 3.0, a feat only 12 of the 484 cities on the map can brag about. In fact, the majority of U.S. cities have low overall biking scores. There are 316 cities scoring between 1 and 1.9, 76 cities between 2 and 2.9, and 80 cities with a score below 1.

Cycling Through the Categories

We noted the top three overall cycling cities and their scores in the five subcategories. But having the best overall doesn’t mean they lay claim to the highest — or lowest — scores within each category. In fact, when it comes to ridership, Portland, Oregon scores the highest of the 484 cities with a 3.9. On the other end of the ridership spectrum is Roswell, Georgia. Roswell is the only city with a 0 in ridership.

However, when it comes to safety, one top cycling city does claim the highest score. Fort Collins, Colorado’s 3.7 safety score is the highest in the U.S. The lowest safety score belongs to Foxborough, Massachusetts, a city with a 0 in safety. In network, a top cycling city once again scores the highest. This time, Boulder, Colorado receives the highest score (a 4.1). Comparatively, Paducah, Kentucky comes up short with a 0.5 network score.

Accelerating past the reach category for the moment, the top acceleration cycling score (a 4.6) belongs to New Orleans, Louisiana. Rockford, Illinois, and Bridgeport and Newington, Connecticut all have scores of 0 in the same category. Pedaling back to the reach category, Grand Forks, North Dakota scores the highest: a 4. However, many cities across the U.S. — twenty-five to be exact — score 0 for the same thing. Take a peek at the map above to see if your city is included in the many 0-reach scoring cities, especially if you call Ohio or Massachusetts home.

The Worst Biking Area in the U.S.

If you want to know where in the U.S. you may not want to ride a bike, look no further than the map. The map helped us identify the worst area for cycling: the Northeastern U.S. When you sort the map by overall score and select the “.04-.03” range, you’ll see that the Northeastern U.S., made up of the New England and Middle Atlantic areas, are the worst for cycling. The cities that are especially bad for cycling in this area include:

• Tatamy, Pennsylvania
• Brielle, New Jersey
• Hooksett, New Hampshire
• Cochituate, Massachusetts
• Foxborough, Massachusetts
• Soldotna, Alaska

Moreover, if you keep the map sorted by that lowest overall scoring range and add the “0.9-0.5” range, you’ll note that the Eastern U.S. is much less bike-friendly than the West. Only 12 cities in the West, including the aforementioned Soldotna, Alaska, Hilo, Hawaii, and a city in Minnesota hold overall biking scores under 1. As for the East? A whopping 68 cities have bike scores under 1, a trend only the map could make clear.

---

Now you can put your pedal to the medal in one of the best cities in the U.S. for cycling. But if you live in one of the worst cities? You may want to wear a helmet, among other things. Alternatively, if you’re a bike aficionado who prefers to sit on the sidelines instead of hitting the pavement, every year in July, over one hundred serious cyclists gather in France to compete in the Tour de France. Be in the know about the biggest Tour de France winners in history.

April 22 is Earth Day, the day folks around the world post appreciation pics of our planet. However, on April 23, the planet slips to the back of many people’s minds, though this isn’t the case for everyone. Europeans and folks living in East Asia celebrate the Earth year-round by recycling and composting as if their lives depended on it (and they kind of do). Other countries, like Japan, minimize human impact by incinerating their trash. This is better than sending large amounts of trash to landfills as heat from incineration can be used to generate electric power. Then there are the countries that love sending almost all of their waste to the landfill. Clearly some countries are more environmentally aware than others. Let’s take a look at countries doing the most and those that could try a little harder when it comes to waste management and our planet.
Which countries reduce, reuse, and recycle and which are garbage at disposing of their own? Sort the map by recycling and composting rates, different methods of incineration, and landfilling to find out. Then, read on for trashy trends we’d be rubbish at spotting without the help of a map.

Europe’s Bin Recycling and Composting, Have You?

Unlike the map of the worst statistics about the United States which highlighted some negative environmental impacts of certain U.S. states (Ohio, New Jersey, Delaware, and North Carolina), we’re focusing on locations doing good for the planet. Europe, for example, is slaying the recycling and composting game compared to the rest of the world. It seems that saying au revoir to daylight savings time in 2019 leaves Europeans enough spare time to recycle and compost. Below is the list of countries with recycling and composting rates of 55% or higher, four of which are located in Europe:

• Germany
• South Korea
• Austria
• Slovenia
• Belgium
• Taiwan

The six countries above have the highest recycling and composting rates in the world. Germany takes the cake, recycling and composting 65% of waste. South Korea is second best, ethically getting rid of 59% of its waste. Coming in close behind are Austria and Slovenia, which tie for third place at rates of 58%. Belgium and Taiwan close out the top environmental do-gooders with a 55% rate of recycling and composting. Plus, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg deserve honorary mentions for recycling and composting rates 45% of trash.

Japan Incinerates the Competition

Incineration is just a fancy way of saying “burning trash.” While incineration does not eliminate the need for landfills, it does convert trash to smaller, more manageable levels. Incineration reduces waste mass by 83% and its volume by 96% which is why it’s popular in countries where space is limited. Some countries have expressed concerns about incinerators and their effect on the environment. However, not only do incinerators significantly reduce the amount of waste for disposal at landfills, the high temperatures of incinerators can also destroy pathogens and toxins that would alternatively fester in the landfill.

The top three incinerators — incineration without energy recovery on the map — include:

• Germany
• Japan
• Canada

These three countries limit the amount of space waste takes up in landfills by incinerating a percentage of it. Just like with the highest rate of recycling and composting, Germany has the best rate of incineration without energy recovery: 13%. Japan comes in second with a rate of 6%, though this isn’t the last we’ll hear of Japan’s aptitude for incineration. Third place goes to Canada. Canada incinerates 4% of its waste without energy recovery.

Incinerating is a step above landfilling, even more so when utilizing incineration with energy recovery. This type of incineration generates energy that can be used for other purposes like electricity or heat.

The largest incinerators with energy recovery are:

• Japan
• Norway
• Denmark

These countries incinerate their trash in the most environmentally-friendly way possible: with energy recovery. Japan does it the best at a rate of 71%. If you recall, Japan also had the second highest rate of incineration without energy recovery. Japan’s tendency to incinerate its trash may be because incineration is extra popular in countries with limited space, like Japan. Norway has the next highest incineration with recovery rate: 57%. Denmark follows with 54% of its waste being incinerated with energy recovery. Sweden — at 50% — also deserves recognition as it is the last country with a rate of incineration with energy recovery over 49%.

Remember when we noted that Austria and Slovenia tied for third when it comes to recycling and composting? They also tied with 0% rates of incineration without energy recovery. But while these two countries have identical recycling and composting rates and the same incineration without energy recovery rate, their incineration with energy recovery rates aren’t anywhere close. Austria has Slovenia beat big time when it comes to incineration with energy recovery. Austria does this at a rate of 35% while Slovenia incinerates with energy recovery just 1% of the time.

Countries that Love Landfills

We mostly focused on the positives up until now. But when it comes to landfills, there are only negatives. Air pollution, contaminated water, unwanted health effects, unworkable soil and land, high economic costs, and fires are only a few drawbacks of landfills. So when you group the map by landfills, keep in mind that countries with higher rates aren’t the ones doing the most for the environment. The countries that appear to love landfills include:

• New Zealand
• Turkey
• Chile
• Mexico
• Israel
• Greece

New Zealand, Turkey, Chile, Mexico, Israel, and Greece certainly have some explaining to do. With landfilling rates like New Zealand’s (100%), Turkey and Chile’s (99%), Mexico’s (95%), and Israel and Greece’s (81%), who needs enemies! But we also have some explaining to do. The data we used to make the map is from a Wikipedia table. Wikipedia is a great resource to find data that can be easily transported to a spreadsheet and copied and pasted into our spreadsheet data mapper. However, we’re also aware Wikipedia’s data may not be 100% accurate. Though it’s safe to say the countries with high rates of landfilling —according to Wikipedia — likely aren’t the most environmentally friendly places.

We noted that Austria and Slovenia tie when it comes to rates of recycling and incineration without energy recovery. Yet, Austria’s rate of incineration with energy recovery (35%) is much better than Slovenia’s (1%). Just like their un-identical incineration with energy recovery rates, Austria and Slovenia aren’t close when it comes to landfilling. Once again, Slovenia falls behind Austria. Slovenia sends a whopping 36% of its trash to the landfill while Austria does the same with just 4% of its waste. In addition to Austria, let’s give it up for the eight countries that have landfilling rates below 5%: Germany and Switzerland (0%), Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan (1% each), and Denmark and Norway (2%).

---

For U.S. mappers, let’s aim to get our country higher up in the ranks. We’re currently ranked 15th in both recycling and landfilling. And be sure to check out the world’s highest electricity usage to see which countries may want to consider relying on incineration with energy recovery to bring their electricity rates down. A lower electric bill and less in the landfill is a win-win in our book. We also wonder if the many different drinking ages across the globe have any effect on recycling rates. Beer cans are recyclable, right?