The purpose of this map is to display changes in population between the 1990 Census and 2000 Census of Buchanan, Clinton, Platte, and Clay Counties. I conceived this map upon hearing about Park University’s Northwest Missouri Deep Map Project, and thought it might be an interesting type of data to display.
The data for this map were collected from the Missouri Spatial Data Information Service (MSDIS), as well as the National Atlas. The later was only to obtain the state of Kansas for display purposes. Essentially, it is a simple join between the census tract data, a census tract shapefile. The counties were added from the state of Missouri to better define the census tracts, and the state of Kansas, purely for aesthetic purposes.
The base map colors were chosen to be a slightly graduated scale, for easier interpretation, and separation. The color for Missouri is actually the same as that for Kansas, except the later displays a 50% transparency. The symbol for the color seemed an obvious choice; it needed to be something that contrasted well with browns and tans, but did not raise any alarms. After cycling through several different color choices, green seemed to fit the best.
Once displayed, I found it somewhat interesting that the map was showing minimal growth towards Jackson County, in Clay County; at the same time, it was showing large growth towards Jackson County, and little growth in the northwest regions of Platte County. I am quite sure that has changed significantly, since the 2000 census, and will be interested to see how that comes out when the 2010 census data is made available.
Choosing the symbol size was not particularly difficult, but I did have some difficulty understanding whether it was appropriate to display negative enumeration units consistent with those that are positive. In the end, I decided it probably did not make that much of a difference, as long as it was accurately represented.
Much like the Cave Density map I produced, the layout is simple and straightforward. It was with that map and this one, that I decided that I wanted to explore the graphics potential of ArcGIS, more than I had already. I made several discoveries, about placing, and aligning things that I forgotten about. Ultimately, I was glad that I took the time to do these final maps in ArcGIS alone, rather than importing them into Fireworks or Photoshop for final touch-ups.
The remainder of the map was a series of obvious choices, to me. The north arrow was added to aid in directional understanding. Data source and credits were added, along with the title, which did give me a little bit of trouble. Primarily, I was unsure as to what to call the map. I had initially made the subtitle “Park University’s Deep Map Project Area,” but discovered that the area actually encompasses over 20 counties. This deep into the map, I did not particularly want to go back to square one, but could have very easily done that. This seemed like the best and most simple area of study, so I stuck with it.
In looking over the near-final product, I decided that the counties names needed to be a little bigger, to be seen as distinct from the surrounding counties. As well, the focus of the data frame needed to portray the counties of study, and their immediately adjacent counties and/or state. My favorite type of scale bar was added, as always in kilometers, because I feel that the US really needs to get on board with the metric system. Otherwise, this type of scale bar is my favorite because it is easy to pinch with your fingers, or lay your thumbnail to, and take to a different location on the page.
There were a couple of things that gave me some trouble on this map though. The projection was a trial and error situation. Nearly every projection that I tried on this caused a slanting, which remains every so slightly, still. However, the North America Albers Equal Area Conic Projection was the one that seemed to maintain direction and area the best, after trying ten or fifteen. In addition, where and how to place the state names was a little difficult, but after stepping away for a bit, I realized that the most logical place, was at the bottom center, between the state lines. Finally, I chose a simply neat line to surround it all, after cycling through every one available. It seemed that this was the one meant for the page.
Overall, I still do not particularly care for these types of maps. When I initially displayed the map in graduated color, the changes were much more obvious. If I had my choice on doing it again, I would choose the later. Otherwise, as every map should be, the final product was created ready for press, in 300 dpi JPG image format.
No comments:
Post a Comment