Seems like I'm getting 3 reactions to this map:
- Neat map
- I don't understand this map
- I will find you and kill your family for this crime against data
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
47 points (88.5% liked)
Data Is Beautiful
6866 readers
8 users here now
A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz
(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
cannot believe how many people are confused that the use blocks aren't showing use in that location, just size in relation to the size of the country
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'd say put me under #3, but I'd need you to draw me a map and we all know how that went last time
Sick burn
Because everyone else is shitting on it - I just wanna let you know OP that I actually liked this map
I'd suggest a merger between '100 largest landowning families' and 'Food we eat'.
This is a weird ass pie chart using the US map as a base right? If I am correct then this is a terrible way to display this data.
Why? It gives people a relatable size and shape to compare to. Like saying the 100 richest landowners own equivalent to Florida.
I get that but it needs to be labeled some way to clarify this at least. A lot of people look at this and could easily think it is what each area has the most of and that the positions of the types of land have something to do with the states they are near or cover.
Agreed. I definitely thought that at first, thinking some of them seemed very off. Glad I read these comments. It’s especially confusing considering where some things are in the map that it seams almost believable for example that NY/NJ are made up mostly of mostly urban and commercial areas.
But it is a good chart (not map) for what it’s intended to show with some perspective provided in proper labeling.
A lot of people sure keep saying "a lot of people" and getting mad at the graph instead of just laughing it off that they didn't get it at first. It's not the end of the world if you don't immediately understand something.
i really do not understand how anyone can be confused by this, obviously it's not a geographical map because new mexico does not contain the sum total of all american railways..
It's a fine graph that gives an intuitive sense for how much area is used for each thing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I like seeing the area.
I kind of like it tbh
I'd like to let you all know that I'm running for Senate in 2024 for the Idle/Fallow areas.
I promise to keep the status quo.
suburbs take up less place than i expected
Why isn't parking on here?
Streets aren't really mentioned either, besides "Rural highways". I assume other streets and parking spaces are mostly included in "Urban/Rural housing" and/or "Urban commercial" (smaller rural streets might not be counted seperately from the surrounding land).
That was the first thing I was looking for too.
I was looking for the people shocked 100 Americans basically own Florida, that's a whole European country there
load more comments
(3 replies)
"Food we eat" is half the size of "livestock feed". Plus look at how small wetlands/deserts are, wetlands especially are essential to climate resillience. What egregiously bad land use, wow. Thanks for this post, it's great.
It takes 76% less land for us to just eat plants, rather than to grow them to feed to animals that we then in turn eat. Really amazing how inefficient it is.
expected more corn
That entire block that says "ethanol" is corn, plus that entire block that says corn syrup, and a good chunk of that block that says "livestock feed". It's a lot of corn.
load more comments
(1 replies)
California also uses their lands for wildfires, they even have a fire season now. Don't forget to give credit where credit is due!
I have examined this abstraction of a map thoroughly.
I do not see any garbage dumps, recycling facilities, sewage processing, cemeteries, energy production, water production...
I could carry on, but this map means almost nothing with all sorts of factors missing.
Without digging in to the numbers further than just looking at this map, could this be because the relative areas of the factors you listed didn't pass a threshold to make it? @ezmack what data source was used for this?
It is absolutely blowing my mind how many people are looking at this and thinking that is trying to show, like, primary land use per block on the map or something?
Like it's well-known that maple syrup comes exclusively from northwest PA, plus all the logging that happens in downtown San Francisco and LA.
Every single home is in the northeast
Is this a glorified pie chart? Follow-up question: Why is this not just an actual pie chart?
the idea is to show that X land use consumes an area equivalent to an easily recognizable state-area
Pie charts are useless in general.
For the example shown here there are way too many categories for a pie chart. You would not be able to see anything past the top 3 or so categories as the slices get too thin and the labels would be all over the place.
Lastly you would miss out on the size comparisons to e.g. states.
This is much better.
the added context of the US map gives it some utility that a pie chart, which is just straight trash, does not have
a bar graph or even just a table would convey similar information more precisely and usefully, but if your only goal is to give an intuitive sense of the land use (not writing policy or anything here) it suits
the amount of land for cows is crazy. and the fact that more land goes to livestock feed than food we eat is interesting as well
The conversion losses to feed animals is very high. It takes 76% less land for us to subsist on plants rather than to eat meat. Well, actually, that's the world average, it might be even higher in the US because of its higher meat consumption. I should check the study again.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›