Discussion/Impressions

Overall, ArcGIS proved to be a highly insightful method of analyzing the population. What I would like to do is cross analyze these maps with data that reflects unemployment rate and then another one that cross analyzes race with poverty percentages. I would like to see the comparisons between locations, poverty, employment, and race and possible trends that may appear thanks to the color coding and "join" options in ArcGIS.

All Others

The pattern in "all other races" bears much more of a resemblance to the Asian map than the black map. Strong concentrations show up in areas of large population and often quality weather. These are most ideal conditions for living and for working opportunities, so this is not surprising. There is a large concentration in Southern California that carries up into the Silicon Vally, as well as throughout southern and western Texas and in the Seattle area in Washington. All of the regions are areas of high productivity and job opportunity.

Black

Rank in black population are heavily concentrated in the south east and mid-west. This is likely a historical reflection of the area bearing similarities to population trends as far back as colonial times and through the period where these states were mostly slave states. The heavy population does not reach down into Florida, which belonged to Spain for much of the aforementioned period and then went on to become a vacation hot-spot for predominantly wealthy, Caucasian people.

Asian

The visual breakdown of shifts in the Asian population across the United States is not particularly surprising. The areas of most movement are by far Hawaii and along the west coast, or the areas closest to Asia. Splotches of other concentrated movement appear to be around the areas of major cities on the east coast as well as Texas. Alaska's tip and Hawaii are probably red due to their proximity to Asian nations and this trend of convenient location carries over to the west coast. Most other areas of darker color are highly populated in general and probably have greater job opportunities than the lighter areas, making them more appealing.

Lab 6

The area I selected is a small part of south-central California, or "the valley."

Extent Information: 
Top- 37.6786111104Left- -118.984444445Right- -117.911666668Bottom- 36.7841666659



The geographic coordinate system is North American, 1983. It uses angular units (degree, 0.017453292519943295) and the D_North_American_1983 datum.

Map 1: Hillshade

Map 2: Slope

Map 3: Aspect

Map 4: 3D Image

Africa Size Comparison

NOT for my grade, but OMG THIS IS AWESOME

Lab 4 Review

            My experience using ArcGIS would have been virtually impossible without the tutorial. As it was, the explicit directions were easy enough to follow, but I would’ve been completely lost had I strayed at all. The exercise highlighted my flaws in both taking directions and dealing with computers in general. I have a tendency to anticipate the next step and just carry on with an assignment, but this system was so foreign that any un-instructed maneuvers on my behalf (that I habitually make) simply set me back a ways. The exercises also spotlighted the fact that I am what I would call “Mac-crippled”… basically that I want instructions/tools/results/etc. to be more picturesque, so I was somewhat dissatisfied with my work.

            Besides my own shortcomings, the lab was highly productive for my knowledge of the usage of GIS. I was especially impressed by my options for data storage. It was incredibly effective to have the options to generate graphs and tables from data that I inputted into visual elements of the map, like the parcels. The options to combine data values were particularly useful as these maps are so often utilized for the comparison of data across a given area. The “join” and “relate” commands allow the user to complete these tasks in a straightforward and productive fashion.

            I, personally, found the analytical interactive and shading options to be especially beneficial. The abilities to click various elements of the map “on” and “off” made it much easier to gain a visual comprehension of the data that I was presented. Color-coding selections were also highly effective in spotlighting whatever element of the map I wanted to deal with. In the case of “Population Density,” it was quite practical and simple to have the coloration organized in a spectrum. Visual analysis is instantly available. With the “Land Use and Noise Contour” elements, the colors were simply random, but still allowed for quick distinction of land-types and identification of areas within the reaches of the noise contour.

            The only real pitfalls of GIS I can think of are the initial intimidation factor and limited access. If you are not at least decently familiar with the format of the visual or tool setups of GIS, any map you are given can be quite daunting. The average user may be quite inhibited without instructional tools like the tutorial I was given. Additionally, the lack of accessibility of the program makes it much less useful. I can (and did) post an image of my map online, but that diminishes the value of ArcGIS in the first place if we lose all of the interactive features for analysis. These limitations in program accessibility in turn lead to limits in the data sources. Sure, we live in a country with considerable liberty when it comes to information—compared to China, perhaps— but realistically the companies that own data sources are quite free to restrict anyone from accessing their data. They don’t restrict too much, as long as you have the purchasing power to get what you’re looking for.

Lab 4