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<\/a> about the objectivity of maps. \u00a0LeFevre 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\u00a0subjective argument.<\/p>\n This image depicts the authors argument that as grazing lands decrease, more butterfly extinctions occur. This type of mapping represents a new spin on\u00a0thick-mapping explained in Hypercities<\/a>.\u00a0While 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\u00a0more 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\u00a0arguments. 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\u00a0demise in butterfly populations. While this argument may or may not be correct, the authors use maps to present it in a clear way.<\/p>\n While\u00a0Jon Christensen and\u00a0Gabriel 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. \u00a0In 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”<\/a>, but none of their final products present any data before\u00a01960. \u00a0In 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. \u00a0If 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\u00a0engaging. \u00a0Additionally 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.<\/p>\n Overall\u00a0Christensen and Shields-Estrada use maps to examine a previous phenomena that will aid\u00a0in 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In their project, “Critical Habitat:\u00a0A Spatial History of Extinction and Reintroduction”,\u00a0Jon Christensen and\u00a0Gabriel Shields-Estrada address the environmental changes overtime in\u00a0a small a California Grassland. \u00a0They specifically examine the failed conservation strategies for a species of butterfly and map the historical conservation efforts that, despite their\u00a0good intentions, ended up hurting the butterfly population and driving it … <\/p>\n![\"http:\/\/web.stanford.edu\/group\/spatialhistory\/cgi-bin\/site\/pub.php?id=21&project_id=\"](\"http:\/\/dig360.shroutdocs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/Snip20140912_2.png\")
<\/a>