Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 1

Cultural Diversity in the Environmental Conservation Workforce:

Situational Analysis
Elizabeth Braker
University of Idaho












Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 2


General Overview:
Environmental conservation refers to the preservation and restoration of biotic and abiotic factors
in the natural environment. The environmental conservation workforce includes science
professionals in academic institutions, private industry, government and non-government
organizations. It also includes citizen-scientists from every profession who educate, support, and
volunteer in environmental conservation. All play an important role in community-based
advocacy and as role models for youth. The field of environmental conservation is of growing
importance because anthropogenic impacts on the environment degrade ecosystem services,
which directly impacts human welfare (Smith, Case, Smith, Harwell & Summers, 2012 & MEA,
2005). Promoting cultural diversity and cross-cultural communication in the environmental
conservation workforce is a key factor in the success of conservation in America. Diverse
collaborative teams in the conservation workforce are more desirable because the members of
these groups are better able to contribute unique insights and broker innovative decisions based
on their experience and background (Gratton & Erickson, 1997). There is an urgency to improve
conservation practices and natural resource management because natural resources are finite, and
the longer it takes to negotiate economic and environmental win-win management decisions, the
more likely we are to lose important habitats, drive species to extinction, and degrade ecosystem
services. Sustainable natural resource management decisions positively affect citizens across the
middle and lower socio-economic class. Participatory and inclusive (formal and informal)
education initiatives can help to draw diverse groups into the conservation workforce.

Strong public interest in science and technology has not translated into improved scientific
literacy for individuals and society as a whole (Burns, OConnor, & Stocklmayer, 2003). The
challenge for science communication in America is to drive the culture and knowledge of
scienceinto the wider community across the cultural cross-sections of society, and to inspire
participation in natural resource management and environmental conservation. If public
awareness of science can be channeled into behavioral changes and cultural norms, then it may
be possible for environmental conservation professionals to garner widespread support and
champion sustainable environmental development. This report sets the stage for a campaign to
engage underrepresented minority groups in environmental conservation by linking its
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 3


importance to every Americans social, economic and overall quality of life as an initial step
toward realizing a demographically-representative environmental conservation workforce.

Background:
A total of 25% of Earths landmass has been converted into cropland as a result of population
growth and increased population density in urban areas worldwide, which have altered the
natural environment by increasing agricultural demand (MEA, 2005). Changes and losses in the
variety of ecosystems lead to changes in ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are a set of
ecosystem functions that support humans (Sekercioglu, 2010). Ecosystem services are classified
as supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services (MEA, 2005). At the global scale,
an increasing human population places direct (e.g. pollution) and indirect (e.g. timber harvests
that cause habitat fragmentation and accelerated rates of erosion) pressure on ecosystems through
increased exploitation of natural resources and changes in land use, disrupting the ecosystems
ability to function properly (Holdren & Ehrlich, 1974). As the ecosystem services change, the
benefits they provide to humans also changes. Holdren and Ehrlich (1974) describe the
relationship of population growth to the environment in terms of an equation: environmental
disruption = population consumption per person damage caused by different consumption
patterns. The concept is that the growing population, with a growing consumeristic middle-class,
has increasing demand for increasingly widespread environmentally harmful products (e.g.
gasoline powered cars) that lead to a disruption in ecosystem services. Each variable has
negative impacts on the environment, and since the variables are correlated, the environmental
impacts are multiplicative.

According to the 2012 United Nations Development Program, an average of 56.7% of the
worlds population lives in areas their countries classify as urban; 83.7% of the U.S. population
lives in urban (densely populated and developed) areas, which experienced twice the population
growth in comparison with micropolitan (areas with a population between 10,000-50,000) and
rural areas (non-urban areas) in 2010 (U.N.D.P., 2013 & U. S. Census, 2010). Wang, Garschick,
Cover, & Fowler (2012) identify a distinction between the rural-urban classifications and the
metropolis-non-metropolis classification; both take into consideration population size and
density, but the terms metropolis and non-metropolis account for commuting patterns and enable
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 4


researchers to account for heterogeneity of population distribution. Essentially, metropolitan
areas can be small, medium, or large, and urban (and rural) areas can have varying sizes of
metropolitan areas. By making this distinction, the analysis of the 2000 U.S. Census data more
accurately shows that approximately 41% of the urban population lived in non-metropolitan
areas, which highlights the fact that urban and metropolitan are not synonymous terms. Further,
Census data showed that 23% of poor Americans lived in rural counties, which at the same time
are considered metropolitan-areas. This information can inform outreach efforts to target areas
with large concentrations of poverty, which are located in mixed-urban and mixed-rural
environments (Wang et al., 2012).

In the United States, the highest poverty rates are found among Native Americans & Alaskan
Natives (27.0%), Blacks (25.8%), and Hispanics (23.2%) (U.S. Census, 2012). Furthermore, the
poverty rates for these minority populations living in urban areas are greater than for populations
in less heavily populated areas. For example, poverty among the Vietnamese population in
micropolitan areas or smaller are between 8.2-11.9%, while their poverty rate in a large
metropolitan area such as Boston is 35.8%, which represents three times the poverty rate for the
Vietnamese population as a whole (Macartney, Bishaw, & Fontenot, 2013). A 2012 study on
poverty explored factors that contribute to high poverty concentration in minority groups, and
suggested that Black and Hispanic poverty group rates act as a segregating mechanism in
metropolitan areas to further segregate neighborhoods, which translate into a higher
concentration of neighborhood poverty (Quillian, 2012). Knight & Rosa (2010) link income
inequality in social systems with negative environmental effects. The phenomenon of status-
based consumption describes consumption patterns of those with high income broadcasting
their privilege and status without contributing to the their own well-being, while causing harm to
the environment (Knight & Rosa, 2010). Meanwhile, those with low incomes struggle to meet
basic physiological needs, as a function of achieving well-being. If the few wealthier members
consume more, then the disproportionately larger amount of low-income members have less
available to consume.

Income inequality in the United States has increased since the 1970s and has disproportionately
affected minority groups, Blacks in particular (Krugman, 2014; Fishcher, Hout, Snchez-
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 5


Jankowski, Lucas, Swidler, & Voss, 1996). This is the result of elected officials representing the
concerns of corporations and the wealthy over middle and lower class Americans. The political
landscape in the United States resembles a plutocracy, where money equates to power, which
means many minorities have little power and are a voice seldom heard (T Frank, 2014).
Government regulations and policies that benefit the wealthy are established by the wealthy and
contribute to inequality because they set the rules of the game for the labor market (Fischer et
al., 1996, p. 129). As an example, educational attainment predicts earning potential in large part,
and government housing policy effects access to type and quality of education. Discrimination
in housing policy historically affected Blacks after World War II, restricting their ability to
obtain a government-subsidized mortgage based on location. Blacks were not allowed to buy in
White suburbs, and their loans to buy houses in Black neighborhoods were likely to be
disapproved. These types of policies widened the rift between the middle-class and the lower-
class Blacks, and perpetuated the concentration of poverty in inner city areas because schools are
poorly funded (Fischer et al., 1996). Paul Krugman (2014) distills the argument of Capital in the
Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty that increasing income inequality in the United States
is due (in large part) to a lack of progressive government tax policy on capital wealth and
inheritance income.

Fair government policies that prevent discrimination and help redistribute wealth (from the
0.1%) can reduce the social and income inequality gap between the classes in the United States,
and lift millions of U.S. citizens out of poverty (Fischer et al., 1996, p. 156-57). Proper
management of natural resources can be achieved by dealing with social issues like reducing
economic inequality (Knight & Rosa, 2010). Social and income equality can help improve
societal well-being and take pressure off of the outrageous exploitation of natural resources.

Spending time in natural environments and greenspaces is one factor of overall human well-
being, and studies indicate that spending time in greenspaces, urban or rural, contributes to an
appreciation for the outdoors. Mixed urban/rural metropolitan populations typically have less
ease of access to greenspaces, and their residents have been shown to have a weakened
appreciation for nature (Smith et al., 2012). However, minority engagement in greenspaces like
national parks and other federally designated lands with historical and cultural significance has
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 6


been historically low. Several theories have been posited to explain this lack of engagement,
including socioeconomic limitations and difference in cultural norms and interests. Weber and
Sultana conclude that proximity is an important factor, as minority groups geographic proximity
to greenspaces has been shown to play a significant role in park use (Weber & Sultana, 2012).

Given that large concentrations of U.S. citizens live in metropolises, that large concentrations of
poverty exist in these areas, and that the poverty is concentrated disproportionately among
members of minority groups, there would be a significant societal benefit in terms of overall
well-being if metro-dwellers were better connected to the natural environment. Fostering an
interest for nature through access to both urban greenspaces and wildlands/nature can contribute
to better understanding of the value of conservation and restoration of ecosystems and
biodiversity. Urban landscapes have great conservation value because they are more accessible
to people living in densely populated areas, and because they provide regulating ecosystem
services that most benefit population-dense areas. Storm buffering is an example of a regulating
ecosystem service that is very important to metropolitan areas along the U.S. coasts like New
Orleans. Restoring coral and oyster reeves and coastal wetlands along coastlines benefits urban
areas because these natural ecosystems reduce storm surge and the severity of storms when they
make landfall, thereby reducing loss of life and property. Investing in ecosystems that provide
regulating ecosystem services, termed natural capital, is much less expensive than investing in
engineered structures to protect urban populations. After Hurricane Sandy, city officials were
interested in designing sea-gates to protect the New York and New Jersey shorelines from
storm surge; but restoring dunes and oyster reeves in those areas would provide the same service
(Tercek and Adams, 2013, p. 231).

Urban landscape conservation efforts are distinct from wildland conservation efforts because
they are characterized by community member involvement (Good, 1989). A prime example is
the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., founded in 1966 by U.S. folk-singer Pete Seeger, to
educate people living along the Hudson River about the dangers of environmental contamination,
provide an enjoyable outdoor experience for citizens in the metropolitan areas of the watershed,
and prove the conservation value of the Hudson River estuary. A second example is The Trust
for Public Land, which works nationwide with communities to identify and protect natural
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 7


spaces, such as parks in and around cities, walking trails, urban forests, coasts, and watersheds
with the goal of ensuring city-dwellers have adequate access to nature. As third example,
Sustainable South Bronx organizes community members for political activism against
development injustices; the sustainability initiatives the organization manages are focused on
green-collar job training, community greenspace inception/revival, and social welfare programs.
While these are models for the power of community organization and for environmental and
social activism, urban landscape conservation groups are not widespread.

It seems that a person may only become involved in conservation after changes in the
environmental conditions directly harms their well-being. A persons actions towards the
environment are a function of attitude (i.e. perceived importance of a subject) and the level of
difficulty of the action, which explains why even those with a heightened appreciation for nature
are less likely to take environmentally-friendly action if it is inconvenient or has a high monetary
cost (Kaiser, Hartig, Brugger, & Duvier, 2011). Kaiser et al. (2011) point out that there is a
positive correlation between exposure to nature and desire to engage in environmental
protection. However, there is not sufficient empirical evidence to determine if exposure to nature
is the causal factor in environmental protection activities, or vice versa. More importantly
though, Kaiser et al. conclude that a critical factor in promoting environmental protection is to
increase appreciation for nature.

Minority groups are underrepresented in the natural resource and environmental conservation
professions. Interest and satisfaction are key factors in a students choice to study and enter an
environmentally-oriented career. In a survey between majority-group and minority-group
natural resource professionals, both developed an interest in the environment based on personal
experiences (Adams & Moreno, 1998). For minorities, personal experiences like school field-
trips, environmental volunteerism and educational programs, television programs about nature,
and fishing, as well as job availability, contributed to their interest in the field of study. Based on
this, recommendations for promoting ethnic diversity in the natural resource profession include
community-based science learning initiatives (focused on youth, their mothers, and educators),
with minority natural resource professional involvement in these initiatives, which should also
take place in formal education venues (public schools and academic institutions). Salary,
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 8


benefits, job security, educational and career advancement opportunities should be emphasized
to academically strong minority youth at the high school and college in a recruitment strategy
(Adams & Moreno, 1998).

A report of a successful initiative to promote minority recruitment in environmental conservation
cites the Minority Training Program (MTP) at the University of Arizona, which works in
collaboration with the Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit. The MTP translated network-
type mentoring programs (as opposed to grooming type), which have been successful in other
fields, to the field of natural resources, and successfully graduated 42 students between 1988 and
2001 (Maughan, Bounds, Moreles, & Villeges, 2001). Initiatives to promote cultural and ethnic
diversity in environmental conservation fields of study at the undergraduate level, like MPT, are
not widespread and have, however, not been successful in the long term. The MPT reported
possible weaknesses in similar minority recruitment and retention programs which modeled after
their structure, but failed to set explicit and realistic goals, assign roles for participants in the
program, find sufficient funding, garner long-term government and university support, assign
accountability/oversight, address mentees physiological needs, or extend recruiting beyond
college students into elementary, junior high and high school students (Maughan et al., 2001).

Scope/Urgency:
Demographically representative natural resource management groups will be better prepared to
collaborate and compromise on often-difficult decisions involving social, environmental and
economic development. Failure to manage natural resources sustainably and equitably will have
negative social and economic implications for the middle-class and the poor in the United States
(Knight & Rosa, 2010). In the U.S., our own consumerism sets a benchmark for the standard of
living in the international community. Our environmental consciousness and preference for
sustainable goods and services does impact management of natural resources domestically and
abroad. Right now, our consumerism is most notably driving the degradation of the natural
environment in developing countries with a manufacturing base, disproportionately affecting
their poor, who heavily depend on natures goods and services for daily survival (Adamowicz,
2005). Appreciation and concern for nature is still a fringe topic, with most citizens living in
metropolitan areas of different sizes largely disassociate their own well-being from the health of
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 9


the natural environment. Smith et al. (2012) use objective & subjective well-being indicators
such as health, social cohesion, education, safety and security, living standards, and leisure time
to suggest a relationship between the provisioning ecosystem services and overall human well-
being. Thus, clean environments and healthy ecosystems provide benefits which people need to
become physically and emotionally healthy.

If widespread efforts are not made to include diverse socio-economic groups in natural resource
exploitation and management decisions, the consequences of environmental degradation will
affect the well-being of the most vulnerable populations in the U.S. (i.e. the middle-class and the
poor) (Knight & Rosa, 2010). In the United States poverty is racialized, with 25.8% of Blacks
and 25.3% of Hispanics living 125% below the poverty line (Macartney et al., 2013).
According to the U.S. Census, a large proportion of Blacks and Hispanics live in the nations 20
largest metropolitan areas. Concentrated poverty and inaccessibility to greenspaces contribute to
a lack of interest in the natural environment, which accounts for low minority enrollment in
environmental studies programs. Increasing minority enrollment in environmental conservation
and natural resource management studies would enrich collaborative groups and lead to
sustainable and equitable decisions.

Unique opportunities for promoting minority inclusion in environmental conservation in the
environmental conservation fields are fomented by government agencies, which respond to
extreme weather events ranging from floods and hurricanes to droughts and wildfires. In the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration allocated
unprecedented sums of money for coastal wetland restoration in the Gulf of Mexico (Tercek and
Adams, 2013, p.250). Environmental conservation and natural resource management is more
relevant now than any other time in history because with our growing population centers and
expanded development into natural buffer zones (e.g. the Everglades). Human health and
property depend on understanding and valuing natural capital. Failing to expand science and
environmental outreach into minority communities for inclusion into a future careers in
conservation will contribute to perpetuating widespread poverty and social-economic inequality.
Although there has been a steady increase in minority college graduation rates for students
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 10


earning science or technology bachelors degrees, from 10.3% in 1991 to 17.8% in 2010, women
and underrepresented minorities represent just 31% of the STEM workforce (NSF, 2013).

A unique challenge for promoting minority inclusion in environmental conservation fields of
study results from the U.S. Supreme Courts interpretation of the 14
th
Amendments Equal
Protection clause as it applies to affirmative action in academic institutions. In the 2013 Fisher v.
the University of Texas at Austin, the Supreme Court established a two-step analysis for college
admissions programs, wherein race can be used as a factor for college admission, but only after
proving that use of other factors has not helped a university to achieve its diversity goals (L
Denniston, 2013). This means that academic institutions, which can and do use affirmative action
in admissions policies to either promote diversity or compensate for a history of racial
discrimination, could have legal footing to actively recruit underrepresented minority groups into
environmental conservation majors. However, the U.S. Supreme Courts 2014 decision in
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action upheld the state of Michigans ability to ban
the use of affirmative action in academic institutions (by delegating the decision to voters), and
will likely prompt a challenge to the Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin (Howe, 2014).
As these debates about the relevance of race in academic institutions unfold, initiatives to recruit
minorities into environmental conservation undergraduate programs based on their race (among
other factors) may be hindered by institutional fear of legal scrutiny.

Target Population data:
To promote cultural diversity in the environmental conservation workforce, it will be important
to focus on recruiting college-bound students from underrepresented minority groups, and
retaining them for advanced education and natural resource-related careers. Following the
recommendations for success outlined by Maughan et al. (2001) on the Minority Training
Program at the University of Arizona, we must organize science and natural resource type
activities and experiences for students in elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. Areas
of particular focus should include students in mixed-urban and mixed-rural metropolises with
large concentrations of minority groups (Wang et al., 2011).

Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 11


The target population is very informed about the entertainment industry (music artists and
movies), fashion trends, and sports. Top role models from the Hip-Hop culture have
successfully been used in marketing (e.g. Beyonc Knowles appearing in Pepsi advertisement).
Minority youth in mixed urban and rural metropolitan areas likely have varying experiences in
the natural environment through special field-trips to local zoos and other school programs;
however, more research is needed to assess how knowledge, values, and attitudes toward
environmental protection vary between cultural minority groups (Johnson, 2005). Students in
public school systems are exposed to the Internet and computers from an early age, and
appreciate speed (especially for video-gaming), immediate feedback, and ease of access to
information (Johnson, 2005)

Main points to consider when developing a framework to recruit underrepresented minority
youth from metropolitan areas in environmental conservation and natural resource management
studies are presented in the following SWOT Analysis:

Strength Weakness
Promote social and economic equity
through participation.
Help restore and conserve metropolitan
greenspaces.
Help protect human life and property
in urban areas during extreme weather
events.
Lack of ethnically or culturally similar
professional role models.
Lack of coordination between natural
resource professionals and formal
education system.
Few success stories for this type of
program.
Opportunity Threat
Emphasizing salary, benefits, job
security, educational and career
advancement opportunities.
Develop skills useful for (physical and
social) community-building.
Sociological factors--higher than
average high school and college drop-
out rates among Blacks and Hispanics
nationwide.
Peer pressure to study another subject
Expense of higher education.


Available Resources & Communication Media:
Financial support for a science communications campaign to promote minority inclusion in
natural resource and environmental conservation fields of study is likely available through
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 12


federal government agencies (like the Fish & Wildlife Service), academic institutions looking to
boost minority enrollment, and social and environmental charitable trusts. Maughan et al. (2001)
success story of the Minority Training Program (MPT) indicated that costs averaged $3,500 per
student/year in addition to student tuition and work agreement partnerships in 2001. Securing
long-term funding and developing a conceptual framework and structure of programs will be
integral to program success, however, Maughan et al. also noted that government budgets for
schools, state, and federal agencies often limit implementation of these types of
recommendations and initiatives (2001).

Successfully communicating the importance of environmental conservation, employment
opportunities, and availability of support programs like mentoring work-study programs will be
another key aspect of such a plan, especially since the effectiveness of mass media
communication efforts vary with culture (Leonard, Van Scotter, & Pakdil, 2009). Mass media is
a means by which one may shift cultural norms, and it has been successfully used to reach youth
marketing segments to change attitudes and norms about such topics as smoking and AIDS/HIV
prevention (Frankenberger & Sukhdial, 1994). Passive methods of mass communication like
radio, broadcast, and cable television are very popular sources of entertainment and information
for youth. In addition, youth with an average command of computers may also be well versed in
the use of new media like Internet radio, YouTube, and social media. Media communication
about the environment is more likely to be successful if it appeals to teens emotions, in their
native language, and if trusted role model celebrities deliver the message (Johnson, 2005).

Forming alliances with similar initiatives that promote inclusion of underrepresented minority
groups in environmental conservation will bolster the strength of this program. It will be
important to integrate or model after the University of Arizonas MPT program and to expand
the partnership and commitment of agencies like the Fish & Wildlife Service.

Summary:
Promoting cultural diversity in environmental conservation and natural resource professions will
be an important factor in appropriately managing our nations natural resources and securing a
healthy quality of life for all segments of the citizenry. As long as White males dominate
Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 13


conservation, environmental issues that are also relevant to minority will not be fully embraced.
A higher proportion of minority groups live in poverty. If we engage them at an early age
through the public education system and guide them through environmental conservation-related
studies, these minorities can drive social and economic benefits in their families, communities,
and our society as a whole.

Programs like this can effectively change our attitudes and beliefs towards the environment.
Government policy, support, and funding are instrumental in an initiative like this. The
government needs to provide the leadership to make this initiative widespread. In light of the
economic recession, all social programs are in peril of reduction or elimination, when at this time
they are most needed. Once potential partners in government, non-government and academic
institutions and an interdisciplinary management team are identified for this initiative, a small-
scale program can be developed in selected metropolitan areas, and then subsequently expanded.



Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 14


Reference
Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Analytical Approaches for Assessing Ecosystem Condition and
Well-Being. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (Current States and Trends).
Retrieved from http://millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.html
A Howe, (2014, Apr. 23). Divided Court Upholds Michigans Ban on Affirmative Action: In
Plain English. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved from
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/divided-court-upholds-michigans-ban-on-
affirmative-action-in-plain-english/#more-208883
Adams, C. E. & M. Moreno. (1998). A Comparative Study of Natural Resource Professionals in
Minority and Majority Groups in the Southeastern United States. Wildlife Society
Bulletin. 26(4), 971-981.
Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D., & Stocklmayer, S. (2003). Science Communication: A
Contemporary Definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183-202.
Davis Sr., R. D. (2002). Increasing Diversity in our Profession. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30(2),
628-633.
Fischer, C. S., Hout, M., Snchez-Jankowski, M., Lucas, S., Swidler, A., & Voss, K.
(1996). Inequality By Design. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Frankenberger, K. D. and A. S. Sukhdial. (1994). Segmenting Teens for AIDS
Preventive Behaviors with Implications for Marketing Communications . Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing. 13(1), 133-150.
Gratton, L., & Erickson, T. J. (2007). 8 Ways to Build Collaborative Teams. Harvard Business
Review, 85(11), 100-109.
Goode, D. A. (1989). Urban Nature Conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 26(3), 859-873.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (2014). Available at
http://www.clearwaterfestival.org/about-clearwater/
Johnson, V.E. (2005). African American Direct Marketing [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved
from http://shrdocs.com/presentations/54811/index.html

Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 15


Kaiser, F.G., Hartig, T., Brugger, A., & Duvier, C. (2013). Environmental Protection and Nature
as Distinct Attitudinal Objects: An Application of the Campbell Paradigm.
Environment and Behavior 45(3), 369-398.
Knight, K. W. & E. A. Rosa. (2010). The Environmental Efficiency of Well-Being: A Cross-
National Analysis. Social Science Research. 40 (3) 931-949.
Krugman, P. (2014, May 8). Why Were in a New Gilded Age. The New York Review of
Books. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-
piketty-new-gilded-age/
L Denniston, (2013, Nov. 2). U.S. newly defends race as college plus factor. SCOTUSblog.
Retrieved from http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/u-s-newly-defends-race-as-college-
plus-factor/

Leonard, K. M., Van Scotter, J. R., & Pakdil, F. (2009). Culture and Communication: Cultural
Variations and Media Effectiveness. Administration & Society, 41, 850-87.
Macartney, S., Bishaw, A, & Fontenot, K. (2013). Poverty Rates for Selected Detailed Race and
Hispanic Groups by State and Place: 2007-2011. U.S. Census Bureau: American
Community Survey Briefs. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

Maughan, O. E., D. L. Bounds, S. M. Morales & S. V. Villeges. (2001). A Successful
Educational Program for Minority Students in Natural Resources. Wildlife Society
Bulletin. 29(3), 917-928.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Findings. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrived from
http://millenniumassessment.org/en/SlidePresentations.html
National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in
Science and Engineering. (2013) [Graph of Science and engineering degrees earned by
underrepresented minorities: 19912010]. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/digest/theme4.cfm

Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 16


Quillian, L. (2012) Segregation and Poverty Concentration: The Role of Three Segregations.
American Sociological Review. 77(3), 354379.
Sekercioglu, C. H. (2010). Ecosystems Functions and Services. In Conservation Biology For
All. (Chapter 3). Retrieved from
http://www.conbio.org/images/content_publications/Chapter3.pdf
Smith, L. M., Case J., Smith H., Harwell L., & Summers J. (2012). Relating ecosystem services
to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a U.S. Index. Ecological Indicators. 28
(2013), 79-90.
T Frank, (2014, Mar. 16). There is no meritocracy: Its just the 1 percent, and the game is
rigged. Slate. Retrived from
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/16/there_is_no_meritocracy_its_just_the_1_percent_and_
the_game_is_rigged/

Tercek, M. R. and J. S. Adams. (2013). Natures Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by
Investing in Nature. New York, NY: Basic Books.
The Trust for Public Land. (2014). Available at http://www.tpl.org

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). [Table 711, Statistical Abstract of the United States Income,
Expenditures, Poverty, and Wealth]. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0711.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). [Table 229, Educational Attainment by race and Hispanic origin:
1970-2010]. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0229.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). [Table 231, Educational Attainment by Selected Characteristics:
2010]. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0231.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (U.N.D.P.). (2013). Population Trends [Data file].
Retrieved from https://data.undp.org/dataset/Population-urban-of-population-/p2kf-c3hg
Wang M., Garshick, K. Cover, J., & Fowler C. (2012). Spatial Variations in US Poverty:
Beyond Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan. Urban Studies. 49(3), 563-585.

Running head: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CONSERVATION 17


Weber, J. & S. Sultana. (2013). Why Do So Few Minority People Visit National Parks?
Visitation and the Accessibility of America's Best Idea. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers. 103(3), 437-464.