Table of Contents ✔ Part 1 — Global Insurance Industry ``` Introduction: The Scale of the Global Insurance Industry What Makes an Insurance Company Large? UnitedHealth Group and the Scale of Health Insurance Allianz: A Major European Insurance Group AXA and the International Insurance Market China Life Insurance and China's Huge Insurance Market Ping An Insurance and Financial Diversification MetLife and the Importance of Life Insurance Prudential and the Global Life Insurance Business Berkshire Hathaway: Insurance at a Global Financial Scale Cigna Group and the International Health Insurance Sector The Role of Reinsurance in the Global Market Why Insurance Companies Need Enormous Capital Insurance as a Global Economic Stabilizer ``` ✔ Part 2 — Major Global Insurance Companies ``` The Changing Structure of the Global Insurance Market UnitedHealth Group: Health Insurance and Healthcare Services Allianz: Divers...
Top 100 United States Cities by Urban Forest Coverage (Tree Canopy)
Ranking 1–20 • Estimated Urban Tree Canopy Coverage
| Rank | City | State | Tree Canopy | Coverage Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Atlanta | Georgia | 48% | 100 |
| 2 | Portland | Oregon | 46% | 99 |
| 3 | Knoxville | Tennessee | 45% | 98 |
| 4 | Charlotte | North Carolina | 44% | 97 |
| 5 | Louisville | Kentucky | 43% | 96 |
| 6 | Nashville | Tennessee | 42% | 95 |
| 7 | Richmond | Virginia | 42% | 94 |
| 8 | Washington | District of Columbia | 41% | 93 |
| 9 | Seattle | Washington | 40% | 92 |
| 10 | Pittsburgh | Pennsylvania | 40% | 91 |
| 11 | Minneapolis | Minnesota | 39% | 90 |
| 12 | St. Paul | Minnesota | 39% | 89 |
| 13 | Cincinnati | Ohio | 38% | 88 |
| 14 | Baltimore | Maryland | 38% | 87 |
| 15 | Boston | Massachusetts | 37% | 86 |
| 16 | Austin | Texas | 37% | 85 |
| 17 | Madison | Wisconsin | 36% | 84 |
| 18 | Raleigh | North Carolina | 36% | 83 |
| 19 | Columbus | Ohio | 35% | 82 |
| 20 | Kansas City | Missouri | 35% | 81 |
Top 100 U.S. Cities by Urban Forest Coverage (Tree Canopy)
Ranking 21–40 • Estimated Urban Tree Canopy Coverage
| Rank | City | State | Tree Canopy | Coverage Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Indianapolis | Indiana | 34% | 80 |
| 22 | Spokane | Washington | 34% | 79 |
| 23 | Boise | Idaho | 34% | 78 |
| 24 | Asheville | North Carolina | 33% | 77 |
| 25 | Tulsa | Oklahoma | 33% | 76 |
| 26 | Lexington | Kentucky | 33% | 75 |
| 27 | Omaha | Nebraska | 32% | 74 |
| 28 | Fort Worth | Texas | 32% | 73 |
| 29 | Des Moines | Iowa | 32% | 72 |
| 30 | Milwaukee | Wisconsin | 31% | 71 |
| 31 | Birmingham | Alabama | 31% | 70 |
| 32 | Chattanooga | Tennessee | 31% | 69 |
| 33 | Denver | Colorado | 30% | 68 |
| 34 | Salt Lake City | Utah | 30% | 67 |
| 35 | Cleveland | Ohio | 30% | 66 |
| 36 | Rochester | New York | 29% | 65 |
| 37 | Syracuse | New York | 29% | 64 |
| 38 | Buffalo | New York | 29% | 63 |
| 39 | Sacramento | California | 28% | 62 |
| 40 | San Antonio | Texas | 28% | 61 |
Top 100 U.S. Cities by Urban Forest Coverage (Tree Canopy)
Ranking 41–60 • Estimated Urban Tree Canopy Coverage
| Rank | City | State | Tree Canopy | Coverage Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41 | Grand Rapids | Michigan | 28% | 60 |
| 42 | Greenville | South Carolina | 28% | 59 |
| 43 | Tacoma | Washington | 27% | 58 |
| 44 | Anchorage | Alaska | 27% | 57 |
| 45 | Albuquerque | New Mexico | 27% | 56 |
| 46 | Colorado Springs | Colorado | 27% | 55 |
| 47 | Wichita | Kansas | 26% | 54 |
| 48 | Durham | North Carolina | 26% | 53 |
| 49 | Greensboro | North Carolina | 26% | 52 |
| 50 | Fayetteville | Arkansas | 26% | 51 |
| 51 | Providence | Rhode Island | 25% | 50 |
| 52 | New Orleans | Louisiana | 25% | 49 |
| 53 | Virginia Beach | Virginia | 25% | 48 |
| 54 | Huntsville | Alabama | 25% | 47 |
| 55 | Tallahassee | Florida | 24% | 46 |
| 56 | Reno | Nevada | 24% | 45 |
| 57 | Tampa | Florida | 24% | 44 |
| 58 | Orlando | Florida | 24% | 43 |
| 59 | Phoenix | Arizona | 23% | 42 |
| 60 | Las Vegas | Nevada | 23% | 41 |
Top 100 U.S. Cities by Urban Forest Coverage (Tree Canopy)
Ranking 61–80 • Estimated Urban Tree Canopy Coverage
| Rank | City | State | Tree Canopy | Coverage Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61 | San Diego | California | 23% | 40 |
| 62 | Jacksonville | Florida | 22% | 39 |
| 63 | Oklahoma City | Oklahoma | 22% | 38 |
| 64 | Lincoln | Nebraska | 22% | 37 |
| 65 | Sioux Falls | South Dakota | 22% | 36 |
| 66 | Cedar Rapids | Iowa | 21% | 35 |
| 67 | Fargo | North Dakota | 21% | 34 |
| 68 | Little Rock | Arkansas | 21% | 33 |
| 69 | Plano | Texas | 21% | 32 |
| 70 | Irving | Texas | 20% | 31 |
| 71 | Mesa | Arizona | 20% | 30 |
| 72 | Tucson | Arizona | 20% | 29 |
| 73 | El Paso | Texas | 19% | 28 |
| 74 | Bakersfield | California | 19% | 27 |
| 75 | Fresno | California | 19% | 26 |
| 76 | Stockton | California | 18% | 25 |
| 77 | Aurora | Colorado | 18% | 24 |
| 78 | Corpus Christi | Texas | 18% | 23 |
| 79 | Lubbock | Texas | 17% | 22 |
| 80 | Amarillo | Texas | 17% | 21 |
Top 100 U.S. Cities by Urban Forest Coverage (Tree Canopy)
Ranking 81–100 • Estimated Urban Tree Canopy Coverage
| Rank | City | State | Tree Canopy | Coverage Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 81 | Los Angeles | California | 17% | 20 |
| 82 | Riverside | California | 17% | 19 |
| 83 | San Bernardino | California | 16% | 18 |
| 84 | Modesto | California | 16% | 17 |
| 85 | Chula Vista | California | 16% | 16 |
| 86 | Santa Ana | California | 15% | 15 |
| 87 | Anaheim | California | 15% | 14 |
| 88 | Long Beach | California | 15% | 13 |
| 89 | Laredo | Texas | 15% | 12 |
| 90 | Brownsville | Texas | 14% | 11 |
| 91 | McAllen | Texas | 14% | 10 |
| 92 | Hialeah | Florida | 14% | 9 |
| 93 | Miami | Florida | 13% | 8 |
| 94 | Hollywood | Florida | 13% | 7 |
| 95 | Cape Coral | Florida | 13% | 6 |
| 96 | North Las Vegas | Nevada | 12% | 5 |
| 97 | Henderson | Nevada | 12% | 4 |
| 98 | Gilbert | Arizona | 12% | 3 |
| 99 | Chandler | Arizona | 11% | 2 |
| 100 | Yuma | Arizona | 10% | 1 |
Source: Urban Tree Canopy assessments compiled from U.S. Forest Service Urban & Community Forestry, Tree Canopy mapping projects, American Forests, and municipal GIS datasets.
Disclaimer: Tree canopy percentages are approximate values derived from the latest available assessments. Rankings may vary depending on imagery year, municipal boundaries, and canopy measurement methodology.
Disclaimer: Tree canopy percentages are approximate values derived from the latest available assessments. Rankings may vary depending on imagery year, municipal boundaries, and canopy measurement methodology.
