Data Visualization Analysis

The data visualization I have chosen to analyze is from WNYC news. It shows the proximity of parks and open space to neighbourhoods throughout New York. How Big Is Your Piece of the Park? has two semi-interactive maps. The first shows the density of acres of park per 1000 residents. The second shows distance in miles from the nearest park. Both maps are color coded to show density and range and allow users to scroll over a specific neighbourhood or area to view exact numbers relevant to each map.

Fig. 1: Acres of open space per 1000 residents

1.) Certain parts of the map with this pale shade have a message of “This tract is not a significant residential area.” which makes it really difficult to differentiate between the neighbourhoods corresponding to those colours versus those that are not considered significant enough.

Fig. 2: Close up example of shade variance among map

Furthermore, the pale shades do not even represent the lowest amount of acres per resident. Because the colour legend has two distinct colours that don’t necessarily fade cohesively into each other, the map feels like it is trying to relay two different sets of information between the pink and green. The darkest green portions of the map represent a park or open space, while the lighter green portions represent a neighbourhood. This creates a bit of an unclear picture of the amount of park space across New York upon first inspection.

I feel that if the colour legend for this map had been one colour in varying shades it could more accurately represent the amount of acres per resident in a more straightforward way.

2.) There is no clear specifications for what is considered a park or open space. For example there is a neighbourhood or area that has more elementary schools or daycares, there would be much more parks in that area. However, those parks would not necessarily be for public use. The data also doesn’t seem to account for parks that are considered dangerous, or heavily occupied by homeless or transient folk.

Fig. 3: Distance to nearest park in miles

The second map (Fig. 3) has a similar colour legend ranging from blue to brown representing the distance in miles to the nearest park. The distance is measured in a straight line and doesn’t account for obstacles in the way, which would mean the route traveled would equal a greater distance than just a straight path to the nearest park. I do recognize that tracking the actual distance walked to each individual park would be significantly more difficult to record than recording the distance in a straight line. Though I do believe technology exists to get a more accurate reading of actual distance traveled, so for that reason I feel this map is a little on the misleading side.

Overall, the data is presented in a relatively easy way to read, with a few things potentially distorting the information. I think the type of chart used and the ability to hover over a given area was the right method to express this information. Using a more accurate means of mileage tracking would greatly improve the second visualization.