Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
feedback from NOAA partners. The only requirement for inclusion in the sample
was that the visualization must be map-based, with the water level represented
cartographically. Six (24 %) tools were developed by U.S. federal agencies, three
(12 %) by U.S. state agencies, four (16 %) by university research centers, six (24 %)
by non-profit agencies, and three (12 %) by private industry or independent
consultants; the remaining three (12 %) tools were developed through partnerships
of federal, state, municipal, and/or university stakeholders. Two tools (8 %) have a
geographic coverage of the entire globe, seven (28 %) by a single country (six
within U.S., one within Australia), nine (36 %) by one or several states (within this
category, four displayed states in the Atlantic Northeast, three in the Gulf of
Mexico, and two along the Pacific coast), and six (24 %) by a single municipality
(five within the U.S., one in Australia). Table
1
lists each of the evaluated
applications.
Several patterns exist within the sample regarding the purpose of the visual-
ization tool, or the user goal that the visualization tool was intended to support.
Following the MacEachren (
1994
) Cartography
3
framework, thirteen (52 %) of the
tools primarily support the goal of presentation, constraining the user interface to
ensure that communication of the waterline or flood extent is clear. In contrast, the
remaining ten tools (40 %) primarily support the goal of exploration, enabling the
user to formulate
questions by interactively building user-defined
scenarios; four (12 %) of these ten tools also provide basic support for analysis,
allowing for the computation of user-defined statistics. The vast majority of tools
(24/25; 96 %) emphasize prediction, depicting the future threat of flooding and/or
storm surges. A small subset of tools (3/25; 12 %) present historical information,
allowing users to visualize the future waterline or flood extent in the context of past
events. A majority of tools (13/25; 52 %) depict the potential damage to physical
and social infrastructure, indicating a need to support planning and preparedness for
at-risk areas. A large minority of tools (11/25; 44 %) explicitly support adaptive
management in response to climate change, symbolizing areas that will be impacted
by rising sea levels according to different climate change predictions.
The sample of visualization tools were compared across a fundamental distinc-
tion within cartography: (1)
representation
, or the graphic encoding of information
in the map display, and (2)
interaction
, or the means by which the user is able to
manipulate the map display (Roth
2013b
). Within the cartographic representation
theme, coding emphasized three topics: (1a) variation in the way in which the
waterline or flood extent is symbolized, (1b) inclusion of uncertainty information
about the waterline/flood extent and variation in the way this uncertainty informa-
tion is symbolized, and (1c) variation in the basemap or overlay context information
provided to enrich the interpretation of the waterline or flood extent. Within the
cartographic interaction theme, coding emphasized two topics: (2a) variation across
supported interaction operators (i.e., the basic system functionality) and
(2b) variation in the web mapping technology used to implement the visualization,
and the opportunities and constraints therein. The analysis was completed in
September and October of 2013.
what
if?
'
'
