Lying with Maps

 

 

 

Although both maps are created using the same information, they appear drastically different in respect to the composition of demographics of the population. In the map I created to portray the Hartford region as being racially diverse, one can look at it and presume there appears to be a mix of races within each respective district. This is attributed to the fact that I changed the map style to have numerous “breaks” in the legend. By increasing the number of gradients within the legend, I increased the appearance that the region was increasingly more racially diverse. In contrast, for the map to portray little to no racial diversity, the map is simply divided into two colors: red (white) and blue (minority). By creating the map with only two “color categories” (divided based on anything below .50 was non-minority and anything above .50 was minority), the Hartford region appears to be completely racially segregated.

The map that depicts racial segregation shows an isolated minority population in the center—Hartford, Bloomfield, Manchester, and parts of Windsor. It appears as though essentially the majority of the suburbs in this area are predominantly white and the center is entirely non-white. In contrast, the map I created to depict a racially diverse region makes it appear as though there are higher and lower concentrations of non-whites in certain districts, but it appears as though every district is mixed and composed of both whites and non-whites. Hartford and Bloomfield are the only districts that appear to have a very concentrated population of non-whites.

In summarization, the more legends I add to the scale, the more accurate my map appears to be. I find it incredibly fascinating that I could completely “lie” about the statistics of a certain area without actually “lying” or by altering any of the data I wish to present to my audience.

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }