What effect do people have when they build places to live?

They often change the landscape

What activities are referred to as eco-friendly?

Activities that minimize environmental impact

Activities that waste resources

Activities that increase pollution

Human Activity and Earth’s Systems

Earth and human activity 201-210

6H.Group 4: Earth and Human Activity

Human Activity in the Desert, Desertification and its Causes- Review for exam pt7.

Soil Erosion •Soil erosion is the washing away of soil by water and wind. •Water and wind are the main agents of soil erosion. •Animals and human activities also influence soil erosion. ✓Water: top soil is washed away ✓Wind: top soil is blown away ✓Animals: overgrazing, destruction of plants and roots ✓Humans: footpaths, deforestation, mining activities, land clearing for crop planting. Wind Water Human activity Deforestation Types of soil erosion •Splash erosion •Sheet erosion •Rill erosion •Gully erosion Splash erosion •Occurs when raindrops fall on loose bare soil •It is also called raindrop bomb Splash erosion Sheet erosion •Occurs when a thin layer of soil is washed away by the water or wind. •Mostly the topmost is washed away. Rill erosion •Occurs when small shallow channels develop. •It occurs when the water runs over the ground in little channels. •Little ridges or rills of soil are left behind. Rill erosion Gully erosion •Occurs when the channels become wide and deep. •Gullies are at least 30cm deep. •They occur mainly on steep slopes.

What are catastrophic events?. Recognize the consequences of the losses of biodiversity due to catastrophic events, climate changes, human activity, and the introduction of invasive, non-native species.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

In a single domesticated grain seed, one might see the bud of great civilizations. The birth of agriculture was a turning point in humans' social development, as stable food supplies enabled people to transcend the constraints of food gained by hunting and gathering. After that, people were able to settle down and experience population booms. As one of the major areas around the globe where agriculture originated, China has contributed to the world's domesticated rice, millet, buckwheat and soybeans. Archaeological studies have unveiled that the planting of rice originated around 10,000 years ago in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, leading to the eventual replacement there of hunting and gathering practices dating back 5,000 to 6,000 years. "It marked the formation of a rice-based agricultural society in the area," said Zhao Zhijun, an archaeologist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Archaeological studies of the origins of rice-based agriculture are an important part of a national project tracing the origins of Chinese civilization itself. President Xi Jinping has greatly valued the project. At a group study session of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee on May 27, 2022, Xi, who is also general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, emphasized the significance of the project and the role that archaeological studies play in better understanding Chinese civilization. The project to trace the origins of Chinese civilization, in addition to finding signs of human activity more than 1 million years ago, has also proved that China's history includes 10,000 years of culture and more than 5,000 years of civilization. The project has provided clear knowledge of the origins and formation of Chinese civilization, the history of its development, the process of the formation and development of its pluralistic and integrated pattern, and the characteristics of the civilization and why it was formed in such a way, he added. This was not the first time that Xi emphasized the importance of the origin-tracing project. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC in 2012, Xi has toured more than 100 historical and cultural locations and issued many instructions related to archaeology and the origin-tracing project. During the 23rd group study session of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee in 2020, Xi called for giving more attention to archaeological research and letting historical facts speak for themselves. "This will provide strong support for our efforts to carry forward the best of traditional Chinese culture and increase our cultural confidence," said Xi. The origin-tracing project has been carried out since 2002. Its ongoing fifth phase, which started in 2020, involves the participation of more than 500 researchers from 29 institutes across the country. It primarily centers on several ancient capital sites, including the Liangzhu site in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, the Taosi site in Xiangfen county, Shanxi province, the Shimao site in Shenmu, Shaanxi province, and the Erlitou site in Luoyang, Henan province, from 3,500 to 5,500 years ago, as well as other settlements mainly along the basins of the Yellow, Yangtze and Liaohe rivers. The project has also expanded to a wider geographic and chronological framework to decode how Chinese civilization emerged and how its diverse elements formed a unity. Excavation of the Liangzhu site, which is over 5,000 years old and is one of the major sites covered in the origin-tracing project, has yielded an inner city covering 3 million square meters and an outer city of 6.3 million sq m, making it the world's largest capital at the time. It also had a giant water control system, which contributed to the formation of a rice-based agricultural society. By calculating the earthwork volume, archaeologists found that building the entire ancient city, the water control system and Mojiaoshan — a 10-meter-tall man-made terrace in the center of the city — required 10,000 people working daily for seven-and-a-half years. The discoveries show that Liangzhu had a kingship able to organize people for large-scale public construction, and its social differentiation, emergence of the city concept and existence of a kingship prove that it became a civilized society, said Wang Wei, a veteran archaeologist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Significant topic Wang said that tracing the origins of a civilization is a significant topic in the research of human history. Over the years, the Chinese project has provided China's answer to how to define civilizations. In 2022, Xi commended the efforts and stressed that the project has made creative contributions to the research on tracing the origins of the world's civilizations. Wang said: "International academia has proposed three indispensable elements for a civilized society based on features of Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations: written characters, metallurgy and the city concept. But we can find that some of the three elements were absent in many ancient civilizations. For example, the Mayan civilization had no metallurgy, while the Incan civilization didn't have written characters." Western scholars believe that Chinese civilization began with the Yinxu Ruins in Anyang, Henan province, a capital of the late Shang Dynasty (c.16th century-11th century BC), based on the discovery of inscribed oracle bones from that time. However, Chinese archaeologists don't agree. With continued archaeological research, international academia now believes that places around the world can propose criteria for civilization based on their own ancient social development. China's archaeological studies have shaped the nation's criteria in defining a civilization: the development of productivity, an increase in population, the appearance of cities, social differentiation and the emergence of kingship and state. "These criteria are suitable for identifying other civilizations as well," said Wang. "Civilizations have in common the appearance of kingship and state. They are only different in the ways of imposing kingship and the forms of state." In China, kingship and state "were shown by exquisite jade and bronze ritual artifacts, grand palaces and magnificent mausoleums imitating aboveground palaces", he added. "In Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, they were demonstrated through superb stone temples, pyramids and large-scale tombs." Multidisciplinary subject President Xi said in 2020 that archaeologists should work closely with researchers from other fields to make an interpretive analysis of material remains. Zhang Chi, a professor of archaeology at Peking University, said that since material remains are often the research focus of archaeological studies, these should not only be observed with the eyes, but also studied using scientific and technological tools. Therefore, from the perspective of research methods, archaeology is by nature a multidisciplinary subject, Zhang added.

Soils Southeast Asia, on balance, has a higher proportion of relatively fertile soils than most tropical regions, and soil erosion is less severe than elsewhere. Much of the region, however, is covered by tropical soils that generally are quite poor in nutrients. Often the profusion of plant life is more related to heat and moisture than to soil quality, even though these climatic conditions intensify both chemical weathering and the rate of bacterial action that usually improve soil fertility. Once the vegetation cover is removed, the supply of humus quickly disappears. In addition, the often heavy rainfall leaches the soils of their soluble nutrients, hastens erosion, and damages the soil texture. The leaching process in part results in laterites of reddish clay that contain hydroxides of iron and alumina. Laterite soils are common in parts of Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam and also occur in the islands of the Sunda Shelf, notably Borneo. The most fertile soils occur in regions of volcanic activity, where the ejecta is chemically alkaline or neutral. Such soils are found in parts of Sumatra and much of Java in Indonesia. The alluvial soils of the river valleys also are highly fertile and are intensively cultivated. Climate All of Southeast Asia falls within the warm, humid tropics, and its climate generally can be characterized as monsoonal (i.e., marked by wet and dry periods). Changing seasons are more associated with rainfall than with temperature variations. There is, however, a high degree of climatic complexity within the region. Temperatures Regional temperatures at or near sea level remain fairly constant throughout the year, although monthly averages tend to vary more with increasing latitude. Thus, with the exception of northern Vietnam, annual average temperatures are close to 80 °F (27 °C). Increasing elevation acts to decrease average temperatures, and such locations as the Cameron Highlands in peninsular Malaysia and Baguio in the Philippines have become popular tourist destinations in part because of their relatively cooler climates. Proximity to the sea also tends to moderate temperatures. Precipitation Much of Southeast Asia receives more than 60 inches (1,500 millimeters) of rainfall annually, and many areas commonly receive double and even triple that amount. The rainfall pattern is distinctly affected by two prevailing air currents: the northeast (or dry) monsoon and the southwest (or wet) monsoon. The northeast monsoon occurs roughly from November to March and brings relatively dry, cool air and little precipitation to the mainland. As the southwestward-flowing air passes over the warmer sea, it gradually warms and gathers moisture. Precipitation is especially heavy where the airstream is forced to rise over mountains or encounters a landmass. The east coast of peninsular Malaysia, the Philippines, and parts of eastern Indonesia receive the heaviest rains during this period. The southwest monsoon prevails from May to September, when the air current reverses and the dominant flow is to the northeast. The mainland receives the bulk of its rainfall during this period. Over much of the southern Malay Peninsula and insular Southeast Asia there is little or no prolonged dry season. This is especially marked in much of the equatorial region and along the east coast of the Philippines. While the dry and wet monsoons are important in explaining rainfall patterns, so too are such factors as relief, land and sea breezes, convectional overturning and cyclonic disturbances. These factors often are combined with monsoonal effects to produce highly variable rainfall patterns over relatively short distances. While many of the cyclonic disturbances produce only moderate rainfall, others mature into tropical storms—called cyclones in the Indian Ocean and typhoons in the Pacific—that bring heavy rains and destruction to the areas over which they pass. The Philippines are particularly affected by these storms. Plant life Tropical forests in Southeast Asia Tropical forests in Southeast Asia The seasonal nature and pattern of Southeast Asia’s rainfall, as well as the region’s physiography, have strongly affected the development of natural vegetation. The hot, humid climate and enormous variety of habitats have given rise to an abundance and diversity of vegetative forms unlike that in any other area of the world. Much of the natural vegetation has been modified by human action, although large areas of relatively untouched land still can be found. The vegetation can be grouped into two broad categories: the tropical-evergreen forests of the equatorial lowlands and the open type of tropical-deciduous, or “monsoon,” forests in areas of seasonal drought. The evergreen forests are characterized by multiple stories of vegetation, consisting of a variety of trees and plants. Although a large diversity of tree species is found in these forests, members of the Dipterocarpaceae family account for roughly half of the varieties. Deciduous forests are found in eastern Indonesia and those parts of the mainland where annual rainfall does not exceed 80 inches. Just as in the equatorial forest, a wide variety of species is normally the rule. Certain species, such as teak, have become highly valued commercially. Teak is found in parts of Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Laos. In addition to these two basic types of vegetation, other regional patterns reflect topography. Especially noteworthy are coastal and highland plant communities. Mangrove belts, of which there are more than 30 varieties, occur where silt is deposited in coastal areas. Upland forests dominated by maples, oaks, and magnolias are found especially on mainland mountain slopes. Human activity has been rapidly altering the stands of virgin forest in Southeast Asia. Most deforestation results from removal for fuelwood and clearing for agriculture and grazing. Although only a relatively small portion of the total land area has been permanently cleared for cultivation—e.g., in Java (Indonesia) and western Luzon (the Philippines)—in some areas shifting cultivation has brought about the replacement of virgin forest with secondary growth. In addition, nearly all countries have commercial logging industries; notable are those in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Myanmar. A growing problem has been illegal logging. Thus, timber harvesting has come to contribute significantly to deforestation. Programs in social forestry and reforestation have yet to halt the rapid denuding of the landscape. Animal life Southeast Asia is situated where two major divisions of the world’s fauna meet. The region itself constitutes the eastern half of what is called the Oriental, or Indian, zoogeographic region (part of the much larger realm of Megagaea). Bordering along the south and east is the Australian zoogeographic region, and the eastern portion of insular Southeast Asia—Celebes (Sulawesi), the Moluccas, and the Lesser Sunda Islands—constitutes a transition zone between these two faunal regions. a classroom in Brazil More From Britannica education: Southeast Asia Southeast Asia is notable, therefore, for a considerable diversity of wildlife throughout the region. These differences are especially striking between the species of the eastern and western fringes as well as between those of the archipelagic south and the mainland north. The differences stem largely from the isolation, over varying lengths of geologic time, of species following their migration from the Asian continent. In addition, the tropical rain forests in many parts of the region, with their great diversity of vegetation, have made possible the development of complex communities of animals that fill specialized ecological niches. Especially numerous are arboreal and flying creatures. orangutans orangutansOrangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in Sumatra, Indonesia. The distinction between the two faunal regions is best depicted by their mammal populations. In general, Australia is inhabited largely by marsupials (pouched mammals) and monotremes (egg-laying mammals), while Southeast Asia contains placental mammals and such hybrid species as the bandicoot of eastern Indonesia. Small mammals such as monkeys and shrews are the most numerous, while in many areas the larger mammals have been pushed into more remote areas and national preserves. Bears, gibbons, elephants, deer, civets, and pigs are found in both mainland and insular Southeast Asia, as are diminishing numbers of tigers. The Malayan tapir, a relative of the rhinoceros, is native to the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra, while the tarsier is found in the Philippines and parts of Indonesia. A number of rare endemic species are found in Indonesia and East (insular) Malaysia, including the Sumatran and Javan rhinoceros, the orangutan, the anoa (a dwarf buffalo), the babirusa (a wild swine), and the palm civet. As the pace of development accelerates and populations continue to expand in Southeast Asia, concern has increased regarding the impact of human activity on the region’s environment. A significant portion of Southeast Asia, however, has not changed greatly and remains an unaltered home to wildlife. The nations of the region, with only few exceptions, have become aware of the need to maintain forest cover not only to prevent soil erosion but to preserve the diversity of flora and fauna. Indonesia, for example, has created an extensive system of national parks and preserves for this purpose. Even so, such species as the Javan rhinoceros face extinction, with only a handful of the animals remaining in western Java

Related quizzes

Related quizzes