Land use in the US - eviltoast
  • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a weird ass pie chart using the US map as a base right? If I am correct then this is a terrible way to display this data.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      115
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why? It gives people a relatable size and shape to compare to. Like saying the 100 richest landowners own equivalent to Florida.

      • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I get that but it needs to be labeled some way to clarify this at least. A lot of people look at this and could easily think it is what each area has the most of and that the positions of the types of land have something to do with the states they are near or cover.

        • n33rg@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed. I definitely thought that at first, thinking some of them seemed very off. Glad I read these comments. It’s especially confusing considering where some things are in the map that it seams almost believable for example that NY/NJ are made up mostly of mostly urban and commercial areas.

          But it is a good chart (not map) for what it’s intended to show with some perspective provided in proper labeling.

        • Misconduct@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A lot of people sure keep saying “a lot of people” and getting mad at the graph instead of just laughing it off that they didn’t get it at first. It’s not the end of the world if you don’t immediately understand something.

          • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s an infographic. It’s purpose is to be understandable at a glance. I thought it was a pie chart then second guessed myself then read the comments and saw a lot of comments that were confused about it. You think I am saying “A lot of people” when I mean “just me I didn’t get this shit at all but I am going to say a lot of people to cover that up”? Read other comments here… a lot of comments (which I assume come from different people) seem like those writing them are confused.

            I don’t have any anger here. It’s a random infographic. If something like this was presented to me at a job where I needed a clear concise answer immediatley and my job depended on me using it… then I dunno maybe anger and frustration then?

            I think you are reading things into my words that are not there.

            Anyway TLDR: Inforgraphics are supposed to be understandable at a glance…this one is not therefore it is not a very good infographic. I dunno why I would laugh about it either…it’s an infographic.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s very difficult to compare relative sizes at a glance compared to a pie chart, or other styles like just a bar graph. This is a graph crime.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      i really do not understand how anyone can be confused by this, obviously it’s not a geographical map because new mexico does not contain the sum total of all american railways…

      It’s a fine graph that gives an intuitive sense for how much area is used for each thing.

      • renownedballoonthief@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s really funny to imagine it literally, though.

        “We’ll I’d heard some bad things about West Texas highways, but this just seems excessive.”

      • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah and Michigan doesn’t contain all the idle/fallow land in the US but the problem is some people look at this and think that Michigan contains the most idle/fallow land in the US which is why it was used to represent that portion of the data.

        I feel like there is a single sentence or phrase that could be written above the or near the graphic which would make it clear but I honestly don’t know what it is.

        • Misconduct@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why is some people’s inability to use critical thinking anyone else’s problem? Like, don’t make assumptions then. Or, take a beat to understand what’s in front of you. There’s nothing wrong with this graph.

          • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes my inability to use critical thinking is obvious because I think this inforgraphic isn’t clear enough to everyone. It’s not like there are a shit ton of comments where people are obviously confused by this infographic and all of them must lack the critical thinking skills that you must have in spades. You seem like a real swell person. Keep being you and if everyone around thinks your insults make you come off as an asshole ignore them… they probably just lack critical thinking skills.

        • Smatt@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          “land use amount is to scale, location is not”

          Still seems kind of clunky, and given all the misunderstanding ITT it might do more harm than good.

    • ultimate_question@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m glad this community is following in the tradition of the reddit one, ugly graphics that communicate nothing useful yet somehow get upvoted to the top

    • Jazsta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, this is a pretty appalling graphic that maybe seemed good in theory but is hostile to the reader in practice.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oooooh. I assumed it was supposed to have a geographic relation. Yes, this is extremely unclear.

    • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ah, that makes sense. I mean, it doesn’t make sense, but it makes more sense than looking at this as an actual map.

  • ezmack@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Seems like I’m getting 3 reactions to this map:

    • Neat map
    • I don’t understand this map
    • I will find you and kill your family for this crime against data
  • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because everyone else is shitting on it - I just wanna let you know OP that I actually liked this map

  • Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d suggest a merger between ‘100 largest landowning families’ and ‘Food we eat’.

      • jimrob4@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh great, the “everyone lives in cities and I have no concept of rural living” people are here now too.

        Awww, ya’ll are butthurt and downvoting me for pointing out not everyone has access to mass transportation or reliable shopping within three blocks of their house.

    • 4ce@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Streets aren’t really mentioned either, besides “Rural highways”. I assume other streets and parking spaces are mostly included in “Urban/Rural housing” and/or “Urban commercial” (smaller rural streets might not be counted seperately from the surrounding land).

    • tnarg42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      That entire block that says “ethanol” is corn, plus that entire block that says corn syrup, and a good chunk of that block that says “livestock feed”. It’s a lot of corn.

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s in there, it’s just split up between food we eat, livestock feed, feed exports, ethanol, and corn syrup. Not all those categories are all corn but even then corn will be a lot of it.

    • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s completely missing North Dakota which, when I visited was mostly corn. This is misleading at best.

  • LiesSlander@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Food we eat” is half the size of “livestock feed”. Plus look at how small wetlands/deserts are, wetlands especially are essential to climate resillience. What egregiously bad land use, wow. Thanks for this post, it’s great.

    • inasaba@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It takes 76% less land for us to just eat plants, rather than to grow them to feed to animals that we then in turn eat. Really amazing how inefficient it is.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s just wrong though. Deserts are particularly huge in the West. Essentially the whole states of Arizona and New Mexico, plus parts of Utah and Nevada.

      They’re probably inside the “parks” part.

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have examined this abstraction of a map thoroughly.

    I do not see any garbage dumps, recycling facilities, sewage processing, cemeteries, energy production, water production…

    I could carry on, but this map means almost nothing with all sorts of factors missing.

  • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is absolutely blowing my mind how many people are looking at this and thinking that is trying to show, like, primary land use per block on the map or something?

    Like it’s well-known that maple syrup comes exclusively from northwest PA, plus all the logging that happens in downtown San Francisco and LA.

      • N509@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pie charts are useless in general.

        For the example shown here there are way too many categories for a pie chart. You would not be able to see anything past the top 3 or so categories as the slices get too thin and the labels would be all over the place.

        Lastly you would miss out on the size comparisons to e.g. states.

        This is much better.

      • yuun@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        the added context of the US map gives it some utility that a pie chart, which is just straight trash, does not have

        a bar graph or even just a table would convey similar information more precisely and usefully, but if your only goal is to give an intuitive sense of the land use (not writing policy or anything here) it suits

  • salt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    the amount of land for cows is crazy. and the fact that more land goes to livestock feed than food we eat is interesting as well

    • inasaba@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The conversion losses to feed animals is very high. It takes 76% less land for us to subsist on plants rather than to eat meat. Well, actually, that’s the world average, it might be even higher in the US because of its higher meat consumption. I should check the study again.

    • Mechanismatic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But I feel like land for cows is akin to food we eat because we eat a lot of those cows also.

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Quite a bit? a reservation isn’t land use lmao. The Navajo rez probably makes up a good chunk of that sheep grazing for example. Native people use the land too, it isn’t just there.

      I get the sentiment but thats absolutely not relevant to this data.

  • littlewonder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m curious why first nation reservations weren’t demarcated. Or maybe they were and I’m just an idiot lol.