There are several reasons this map was chosen. First, it seems pretty clear the map is being generated by a GIS composed of several layers - boundary, earthquake intensity, towns, roads, railroads, possibly population movement. On the USAID site the same map is shown in at least one other form, without the intensity layer, and there are some indications that the map is being updated daily. All in all, a good example of how GIS is connected to current events.
The map was also chosen because it demonstrates an interesting and important aspect of the situation in Haiti which is how population movement coincides with the level of earthquake intensity. Large populations of people are being moved from the area of highest intensity around Port-Au-Prince to areas where intensity was lower and there is presumably a better ability to provide relief services.
The one aspect of the map that I found hard to understand was the Key and associated Affected Areas boxes. The boxes show the type of relief that is being provided by certain agencies, however, there isn't a good indication on the map where geographically, those services are being delivered; a weak point because the keys dominate so much map space. Perhaps relief service area is a layer that is turned off or covered (maybe it is an area layer that conflicts with the intensity layer, the colored names of aid agencies seem to imply such). Whatever the reason, the lack of geographic context to the table data muddies the perceived impression of what the purpose of the map should be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Sean,
ReplyDeleteIn my previous comment, I wrote... WOW. So now let me say a bit more. I like your map choice, but more important, your remarks about the map choice match the very high level of consideration and thought that you put into everything that you contribute to the class. You write very well and the content is alway "on target" and insightful.
Thanks for sharing! Brian