21. Protect British Columbia’s North Coast

Now it’s Your Turn

In the comments, please ask questions or make suggestions that will help the cartographer improve the map. Key things to think about include:

  • Does the map orient the viewer?
  • Does the data tell a story?
  • Does the map support the story being told?
  • Does the map make assumptions?
  • How could the map be more readable?
  • Are there any errors or typos?
  • Chuck Clark

    I like the map and I found it readable.

    But the lede is buried, as the newspapers like to say.

    Consider emphasizing the MINIMUM 10% commitment: In that last line of text at the bottom, and “minimum 10%” before “commitment”

    I think the lede is this Given the existing and proposed protected areas shown, Canada is less than halfway to their goal! (At least as far as the area of this map is concerned.)

    Consider pushing the lower-left text blocks upward and lessening their rightward extent. I realize this would cover up the “continental margin” callout, but continental margin does not enter into the discussion, so eliminate it, and use the gained space to pull a bit more shoreline into the picture. Surely the proposed Scott Islands Area extends eastward, right? EDIT: No, wait, you’d lose the Marine Protected Area that sneaks in on the upper left. Perhaps you could explore reducing the scale to show just a tad, to show more of both the Marine Protected Area and the Scott Islands Area.

    Also, the existing and proposed areas are shown at the same intensity, so I was slow to catch on to which was which. However, once I studied the colors, I was able to easily keep track of which was which. Consider making that large green area just a bit paler.

    That last paragraph in the “Banning Tanker Traffic” section is a wordy bunch of boilerplate that obscures the power of the previous paragraph. Consider deleting it, and adding a clause to the previous paragraph something like this: “Permanently banning . . . Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound, as permitted under the United Nations Law of the Sea—will help protect . . . (etc.)” That’s a much stronger ending for this section. If you must have all the boilerplate, consider shifting it to a seven-point-font footnote.

  • Jonny Jew

    I really like this map and love to see some advocacy for public and protected lands. The bright colors really offer an optimistic feel which is a nice contrast to a lot of doom and gloom represented in a lot of these maps. I would agree with Chuck that there is a lot of text that may be able to be condensed a little. Although the information is high quality and official, it includes a lot of jargon and technicalities that may be difficult for the lay-reader.

    The first thing that jumps from the text and title is banning tanker traffic. You say that the ban would include Dixon entrance,Hecate straight, etc, but why not show the proposed ban area on the map?

    Visually, cutting out the ocean at the Canadian border and putting the title over white makes the composition feel lopsided. Simply keeping the ocean blue on the US side, and giving the title some space and allowing the it to cross the border would really help.

    Before I really studied the legend , I was thinking to myself: “BC sure has already protected so much of their waters, this is great!” That might be the opposite reaction you’re looking for. I think I was led to that conclusion because the near-opaque brown of the Marine Protected Area has so much contrast to the ocean and spatially is so dominant. A possible change that may be cool would be to make all the proposed areas transparent and existing areas opaque. Visually I think it would be more intuitive, but also readers could quickly compare how much the proposed areas would expand and connect existing protected areas.

  • Looks like a government map.

  • Perrine Laroche

    Beautiful and really clear map!!
    Maybe missing a secondary location map to situate the study area in a wider context. Should also be interesting to indicate, when available, the particular features that had motivated the situation choice of future MaPP.
    Thirdly, maybe you should add a symbol to show that oil traffic is prohibited because you talk a lot about it in the text but among graphical element of the map none seems about it..