The
map above is a selection from National Geographic magazine’s September 2022
edition. While I enjoy reading their
maps, a close examination of this map reveals many problems and others the
magazine has published. Its title “Free
to Roam” is strikingly lacking in clarity.
I would have kept this headline, but added some context to the map, such
as “Free to Roam: Wildlife Corridors in North America”. This is a title that not only grabs the
reader’s attention but specifies what the map is about. Perhaps the magazine was trying to avoid
redundancy in the context of the article surrounding it, yet if we are seeing
the map by itself, the only thing that helps to determine what it’s about is the
scale at the bottom left, showing modeled flows of wildlife.
Textually, the map can be difficult to read due to the
choice of using a white font on a background that features very light colors
where the corridors are. I’d go with a
different color scheme altogether, as there are many dark areas on the land
that approach the same darkness as lakes, rivers, and oceans, which only works
if the reader is someone who knows the geography of North America well. I’d go with brown or green for land areas
with no corridors, keeping it relatively dark; and changing from white to red
where the corridors are. Adjusting these
colors would make the white font more legible.
Also, the captions have some interesting information, but they may be
too small to read- a common issue in their magazines. I would shorten them to become more succinct
and make the font slightly larger.
Sources for the data can be found in the bottom right
corner of the map. They are the
Wilderness Society and USGS, which are reputable sources. The problem is the map fails to report how
the data was calculated by these organizations.
There isn’t even information in the article that points to their data
collection methods. The casual reader
might see USGS in the sources and think it’s a legitimate map, but without any
reference to the real data it is hard to take seriously as an academic
source. The cartographers could have
been biased, making wildlife mobility seem like a bigger problem than it really
is to raise more concern from their readers and keep them buying their magazines.
But I believe they used the right
sources; they just weren’t transparent enough in how these models were
calculated.
Another problem with the data is that its
one-dimensionality makes it subject to an ecological fallacy. One might assume from the map that areas
heavily populated by humans have less wildlife movement, which makes sense from
the standpoint of urban areas impeding migrations. However, if we look more carefully at the
map, we can see that areas directly east of the Rockies are severely limited to
migrating animals, conflicting with the assumption about urban density. Adding more data to the map would help
clarify this disparity: particularly population density and major transit
routes. Since population density east of
the Rockies is low, it could mean that intercontinental transit routes are
blocking animals from migrating. Prolific
farmland in the area could also be contributing to the problem. Adding a layer of farmland might help show
this relationship, but that could make the map appear messy with the other
layers. An insert or a separate map showing
all the farmland on the Great Plains in comparison to wildlife corridors would
be helpful in analyzing that. Such a
relationship would suggest that if corridors need to be engineered, they
shouldn’t just consist of overpasses on freeways, highways and railroads, but
pathways through farmland as well.
As
stated above, I’d go with a different color scheme because the extreme
brightness doesn’t contrast well with the extreme darkness. To better differentiate land from water, I’d
use green and blue respectively, then use a spectrum of red for the
corridors. Not only would this make
everything more legible, but it would help readers locate areas. Even the borders are white (I’d change them
to black) on this map, making them blend in with some of the corridors. Since the colors on this map are in shades of
black and white, it actually works well for a color-blind audience, though a
color printer might have difficulty printing every shade.
The
cartographers seek to promote wildlife mobility awareness and do a fairly good
job at it. The bright colors and the
headline grab our attention, just as the cavity in the middle of the continent
raises our concern. There is so much
greater mobility in Canada and Mexico that it makes the reader wonder if U.S.
policies are causing these disruptions. Based
on the map and its captions, the message is that as migration patterns are
deteriorating, human engineered wildlife corridors are increasing. The only counter is that it also states how the
wall at the U.S.-Mexico border blocks mobility, which isn’t just a political
statement; an endangered species can cross a freeway at the right moment, but a
wall limits its movement entirely. Complementary
data could include conservation efforts that show how much a government works
to conserve their environment compared to others.
Source:
Chwastyk, M., Schnure,
M., NGM staff. Free To Roam. National Geographic Magazine. September 2022 ed., 51.
No comments:
Post a Comment