Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 9, 2012 in Featured Maps, Visualisation | 2 comments

Deceptive in their Beauty?

 

Finding ways to effectively map population data is a big issue in spatial data visualization.  The standard practice uses choropleth maps that simply colour administrative units based on the combined characteristics of the people that live there (see below).

These maps are popular with cartographers for a couple of reasons. You get a clear sense that the map is depicting some form of aggregation (or grouping) so readers of the map are (hopefully) less tempted to think that everything or everyone in that particular unit are the same. Mapping in this way is often the simplest option as names of the administrative units often come with the data you are interested in so they can be easily linked. Ultimately the underlying data are at household level and choropleth’s colour areas (such as parks etc) where nobody lives. For example the River Thames is running through the map above. Oliver O’Brien has sought to remedy some if these drawbacks by clipping the standard choropleth to building outlines (see first map and below).

I think this has resulted in a great visual improvements to the standard maps, and they closely resemble the iconic maps of Charles Booth. The question is, has Ollie gone too far? The reason the maps look better is because they have massively increased the implied precision of the data. This is what makes the increasingly popular dot density maps so eye-catching (but potentially very misleading). You are more likely to think that the inhabitants of each building (if, indeed there are any) are exactly as the colour suggests, but we know that the final colour is based on a number of the surrounding households (approx. 125 in this case). The obvious solution is to map household level data but this clearly isn’t possible for reasons of confidentiality in addition to the fact that grouping households makes statistical sense in many applications. The counter to this argument is that if people are encouraged to look for their own house it will be abundantly clear (to them at least) that the implied category is unrepresentative and they view the map more critically. This implied precision, called the ecological fallacy, affects our lives daily with anything from insurance premiums, to public services and marketing but we don’t notice it because it isn’t mapped. By revealing it in such a visually appealing way, do these maps compound the problem or educate us about it? Click here for Ollie’s explanation of the maps.

Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Google Bookmarks
Share on reddit
Bookmark this on Digg
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on LinkedIn

2 Comments

  1. Hi, I for one like the O’Brien Maps and in fact prefer them! Many a time I have had the consumers/ end-users of maps point out the ridiclousness of demographic geographies that ignore underlying geographic relevence (classic case in point one of the LSOAs in Avonmouth, Bristol that technically juts out into the river Severn several kms following the “true” administrative boundary of the City).

    Whilst it is true that it may give a false impression at the scale at which it is viewed, I think it is important to note the distinction between the methodology of display (which I feel is more realistic and meaningful for the end-user in this case); and the data behind it (which isnt designed to give a detailed demographic breakdown at the scale/ geography at which it is used.

    I think I will be giving the method a whirl with my sub-OA/LSOA population estimates and see if improves the output!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Practical mapping | Pearltrees - [...] Deceptive in their Beauty? | Spatial Analysis Mapping in this way is often the simplest option as names …
  2. Old-style mapping provides a new take on our poverty maps « Another Word For It - [...] way – and it’s quite old. This intricate visualisation by Oliver O’Brien (via spatialanalysis.co.uk) illustrates the demographics of housing …
  3. Building Blocks and MOSAIC Tiles | The Pattersonian - [...] appear less accurate than it is? Interestingly the debate went slightly the other way round on the spatial analysis …
  4. Subtracting streets from choropleths, and how it might help understand uncertainty | Robert Grant's stats blog - […] removing the streets and uninhabited areas. This helps you navigate your way but also, suggests James Cheshire of Spatial.ly, …

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>