Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In their project, “Critical Habitat: A Spatial History of Extinction and Reintroduction”, Jon Christensen and Gabriel Shields-Estrada address the environmental changes overtime in a small a California Grassland. They specifically examine the failed conservation strategies for a species of butterfly and map the historical conservation efforts that, despite their good intentions, ended up hurting the butterfly population and driving it towards extinction. In line with Guldi’s argument on Spatial Turn, Christensen and Shields-Estrada use digital maps as a new tool for addressing an old question – “re-examine the 20th century narrative of the transformation of California’s grasslands and how that history shaped modern conservation” (Christensen and Shields Estrada).
Christensen and Shields-Estrada visually take the reader through a population history of the area. By combining interactive maps and graphical figures, they place their work in conversation with LeFevre’s argument about the objectivity of maps. LeFevre argues that maps can not be completely objective, and this project demonstrates that although these maps seem to be depicting biological facts (somewhat objective), the juxtaposition of map and graph (below), presents a strong subjective argument.
This image depicts the authors argument that as grazing lands decrease, more butterfly extinctions occur. This type of mapping represents a new spin on thick-mapping explained in Hypercities. While Christensen and Shields only provide two layers on their actual map (area and extinction status), coupling the map with an interactive graph allows for even more layers – time, land status, and a land-status/extinction rate relationship. The two interactive map/graph figures in this project provide the most substance and the strongest arguments. They are visually pleasing, easy to use and understand, and digital for a reason. They further the authors arguments that physical changes in the landscape, especially the introduction of parks, protected areas, and new developments, is correlated with the demise in butterfly populations. While this argument may or may not be correct, the authors use maps to present it in a clear way.
While Jon Christensen and Gabriel Shields-Estrada present a clear and significant case for the importance of environmental mapping when examining previous population trends, their final product lacks in several areas. In their introduction, the authors stated that they would use “18th and 19th century data sources to re-examine the 20th century narrative of the transformation of California’s grasslands and how that history shaped modern conservation”, but none of their final products present any data before 1960. In terms of graphing, the two impressive visualizations are bold and influential, but they lack in interactiveness. A reader simply presses play and watches history unfold. If there was a way to zoom in on a particular place, the authors would introduce a new level of scale that would make their maps more interactive and engaging. Additionally they graph the changes in land use, but including this on a map would allow for their argument on the interconnectedness of land use change and population status to visually thrive.
Overall Christensen and Shields-Estrada use maps to examine a previous phenomena that will aid in future conservation decisions. Their use of maps to answer historical questions as well as provide future solutions is refreshing and strong, and brings justification to Geographic Representation as an area of study.