The map is neat, but I am SO not in the mood to read about America's Long Immigration Debate or religious demographics.
Do you have any plans to leave Ohio?
That is the scariest map of the US ever.
I've always found these
Cool map, but I wish there was a way to show it without resorting to logarithmic plotting.
I can't say I follow you here.
Linear plotting would eliminate everything but the metropolii.
Logarithmic plotting is my first choice as we are trying to communicate relative populations visually, not statistically or "realistically".
Know what I mean?
I realize that it has to be done logarithmically because the range is so great. But people tend to "think" linearly, so it would be nice if there was some way to show it that way. Confusion about log plots often distorts perceptions.
2006-11-01 06:26 am (UTC)
Distortion is another word for communication.
I can see why you'd say headcounts should be linear.
But if you're trying to communicate where Americans live and still show which cities are the biggest, a logarthmic-type scale is one of the better ways to do it. I'm not going to address psychological scaling
or how we group stuff - the purpose behind the map is what's important.
Basically, with this scale, we're able to both see where nobody lives and find cities with similar populations of any size (e.g. San Juan and Miami, Anchorage and Billings). The metropolii still tower over the nation. No one in the audience is trying to estimate the exact population of a town using this map.
All that being said, you have to wonder why Houston and Philly claim to have the same population, but dramatically different heights.
By the way, the University of Kansas pioneered this field of cartographic research. It's the only thing that could get me to move to Kansas.
My first comment was just a lament that humans don't generally have a good way of perceiving data with a large dynamic range, especially visual data. Logarithms are a way around that, but I think it most cases it's not intuitive.
However, the more I look at this particular image, the more I have a problem with it. Most significantly, we both made a mistake of thinking it was plotting population, misled on by the data labels which discuss population numbers -- but looking at the legend, it turns out it's plotting population density. Density is a significantly different measure than total number, and that we were both misled suggests the chart doesn't make that sufficiently clear.
Combined with the potential confusion caused by the log scale, and I think the map image overly distorts the information, and not in a helpful way. The reason I'm harping a bit on the log scale for this particular plot is that the urbanization of America is an important fact. I think people should realize just how insignificant the population of many states are compared to just a handful of cities. This is an even more important fact on the eve of an election. Putting numbers on a log scale gives the visual impression that some of these places are in the same league, when they really aren't. Using densities is almost dishonest, since it doesn't directly support the statements accompanying the map.
You have to use density with mapping.
I guess you could define specific cities, towns and metropolitan areas, then estimate their population. That's quite a bit of work and you'd end up with something very subjective and much lower resolution.
A map could show either density or population. The relation between the quantities is only land area, which should be apparent from the map itself. It's just a question of if you want the viewer to integrate over area or divide by area to recognize the non-charted quantity. (Here is a map
showing population and land area simultaneously, although it has plenty of other problems.)
Something that bugs me about the Time Magazine map is that spikey graphics mean the spatial area used for the density calculation isn't clear. Without it, the relation between population and density isn't apparent, and the text surrounding the map isn't supported by the mapped data. All the text refers to population totals, but the data displayed claims to be density measurements. A high density area does not necessarily mean large population if it's not a big region and vice versa.
In fact, I'm increasingly less sure I understand what is being plotted on this map. You pointed out some irregularities, and I also noticed that Los Angeles has a spike about twice as high as Boston, although the Boston area is a far more dense.
You're mixing up area data and point data.
You can make a map of population, but it would be points of groups people (cities, towns, individuals, &c.).
This map is an areal map, so it has to be of density.
Hope this clears it up.
But by adding spikes, it starts to imply pointwise data. Moreover, their text and "data labels" on the spikes have pointwise values, which further confuse the issue.
More conventional area-wise density maps like I linked below are much more clear. If they had just used one of those, I wouldn't complain.
Yeah, at this scale the US Census tracts really look like points.
It looks like he grabbed the data from SEDAC
, which means the census tract data has been resampled to a raster grid. Should have just left it that way.
You'd be hard pressed to tell a difference at web graphic resolution.
I mean he shouldn't have added spikey things with some not-really-log height scale. The flat raster map with a log color scale is plenty clear.
Ok, I think I found the "source image" for the Time Magazine map. That is, a sensible display of the data which inspired the Time map.This map
makes a lot more sense to me because the spatial granularity is a lot more clear. Even better here
. With these maps, the viewer can readily see the area of a high density region and so statements like "80% of the US population lives in a metropolitan area" have valid graphical support. I think Time Magazine tried to sex-up thier graphics and in doing so made a mess of the quantitative display of data.
Googling up the author's name could explain some stuff.
He does do a nice job with the non-quantitative stuff.
wow. that is a distractingly pretty map!
it conjures up all sorts of images of elementary school and growing crystals in a jar... so blissful...